A defendant can be held liable for negligent misrepresentation on two disparate theories.  First, under Rest.2d Torts section 311, a defendant may be liable for negligent misrepresentation in endorsing a product that physically harms the plaintiff.  (See Hanberry v. Hearst Corp. (1969) 276 Cal.App.2d 680.)  Here, plaintiff suffered no physical injury and so couldn’t rely on that theory to pursue a negligent misrepresentation claim based on an allegedly false certification that poultry products were from humanely raised chickens.  Second, under Rest.2d Torts sectio 522, negligent misrepresentation will lie where information is conveyed in a commercial setting for a business purpose.”  However, under that theory, the class of potential plaintiffs is limited to “those to whom or for whom the representations were made.”  An advertisement broadcast to the general public cannot serve as the basis for such a claim because no member of the public can show that he or she is a member of a limited group of persons for whom the defendant intended to supply the information.