With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 12-C-6403, 2014 WL 804458, at *9 (N.D.Ill. Feb. 28, 2014). Courts in the minority recognizing this duty find generic consumers’ injurious reliance foreseeable; brand manufacturers know or should know that a significant number of patients whose doctors rely on their product information for brand name drugs are likely to have generic drugs dispensed to them. Applying Kentucky law in Smith, 657 F.3d at 424 and Tennessee law in Barnes v. Kerr Corp., 418 F.3d 583, 588-89 (6th Cir.2005), this Court concluded that generic consumers in those states could not maintain an action against brand manufacturers, in line with the majority of courts nationwide. Every circuit court of appeals that has addressed the issue is in accord. See Schrock v. Wyeth, Inc., 727 F.3d 1273, 1282 (10th Cir.2013) (<HOLDING>); Guarino v. Wyeth, LLC, 719 F.3d 1245, 1251

A: holding that real estate agents owe their  clients a duty of loyalty
B: holding name brand manufacturers may be held liable by consumers of generic drugs for representations made to prescribing physicians under vermont law
C: holding that a brand manufacturer of prescription drugs cannot be held liable for injuries suffered by consumers who ingested only the generic form of a drug under florida law
D: holding that brandname drug manufacturers owe no duty to consumers of generic drugs under oklahoma law
D.