projects.main. With slight modifications not relevant here, § 5(3) of the Third Restatement reflects the same principles as § 552 of the Second Restatement. See Third Restatement § 5 cmt. a (“[This section] is based on the logic of Restatement Second, Torts § 552, which a majority of states have adopted. The black letter of this Section, which covers liability for negligent statements, repeats § 552 with small changes.”). In this dissent, I draw upon both of these provisions and their associated comments and illustrations. 11 Plaintiffs in this ease do not claim that they relied on the actions of a state agency or other third party that, in turn, relied on the misrepresentations. See, e.g., In re Sofamor Danek Grp., Inc., 123 F.3d 394, 403-04 (6th Cir. 1997) (<HOLDING>); Goldman Servs. Meek Contracting, Inc. v.
holding that plaintiffs respa claim failed as a matter of law where it did not allege actual damages holding that plaintiffs did not allege actual reliance on defendants misrepresentations  and thus could not rely on  552 of the second restatement  where plaintiffs proffered only fraudonthemarket theory alleging that defendants negligent misrepresentations affected market prices which induced plaintiffs to enter into certain transactions holding that if the alleged misrepresentations are material a plaintiff is entitled to recovery whether or not the misrepresentations caused the alleged damage holding that promises of future conduct are not actionable as negligent misrepresentations holding that whether a plaintiffs reliance on defendants misrepresentations was justified is a question of fact precluding summary judgment