Restatement (Second) of Torts § 552 (1977)). In Wyle, decided after Plourde, the court applied the negligent misrepresentation exception to defendants who were not professional suppliers of information, but rather homeowners who made representations regarding their property prior to its sale. See Wyle, 33 A.3d at 1189-92. Courts in other states are divided over whether § 552 is limited to professional suppliers of information, or applies more broadly to parties who “profit by supplying the information.” Compare, e.g., Pitts, 818 N.W.2d at 111-12 (“[OJnly those who are in the business of supplying information to others can be liable for negligent misrepresentation.” (quotation marks omitted)) with State ex rel. Bronster v. U.S. Steel Corp., 82 Hawai'i 32, 919 P.2d 294, 307-12 (1996) (<HOLDING>). But the New Hampshire Supreme Court in Wyle
holding that  552 does not require that defendants be in the business of supplying information but only that they  profit by supplying the information holding actual possession of or access to information by the irs is not an absolute bar to enforcement of a summons for that information holding that a motion picture film is a record for purposes of the freedom of information act 5 usc  552 1976 holding that the furnishing of misleading information cannot support a claim for negligent misrepresentation the information must be false holding failure to disclose may constitute supplying false information to support negligent misrepresentation claim where such failure breaches a statutory duty