majority of courts, in at least fifty-five decisions ind that the misrepresentation cause of action is distinct from a product liability claim, a brand name defendant owes no duty of care to consumers of the generic bioequivalent of its product. Foster, 29 F.3d at 171. A minority of courts have held the opposite, first finding generic consumers’ common law claims distinct from product liability claims and then concluding that brand manufacturers owe a duty to avoid causing injury to generic consumers that can give rise to liability. See, e.g., Conte v. Wyeth, Inc., 168 Cal.App.4th 89, 85 Cal.Rptr.3d 299, 309 (2008); Kellogg, 762 F.Supp.2d at 709; Wyeth, Inc. v. Weeks, No. 1101397, — So.3d —, —, 2013 WL 135753, at *19 (Ala. Jan. 11, 2013); Dolin v. SmithKline Beecham h Cir.2013) (<HOLDING>); Bell v. Pfizer, Inc., 716 F.3d 1087, 1092-94
holding that brandname drug manufacturers owe no duty to consumers of generic drugs under oklahoma law holding name brand manufacturers may be held liable by consumers of generic drugs for representations made to prescribing physicians under vermont law holding that brand name manufacturers cannot be held liable for injuries caused by products they did not manufacture under arkansas law 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 recognizing under alabama law that drugs manufacturer owed duty to warn about potential dangers of using prescription drug for an offlabel to patients prescribing physician by drugs manufacturer