Zantac Lawsuit News

There has been a lot of bad Zantac lawsuit news.  Incredibly, all of this bad news revolves around one person’s opinion of the scientific merit of these lawsuits.

But this litigation has turned once again in 2025.  We have a new Zantac settlement resolving most of the GSK lawsuits. And a Delaware judge has given the green light for 75,000 cases pending in Delaware to proceed.  So it is all systems go in the fight to get fair Zantac settlement amounts for victims.

If you have a potential Zantac lawsuit, call our lawyers today at 800-553-8082 or contact us online.

Zantac Lawsuit Update

Here are the latest Zantac news and updates in this back-and-forth litigation:

June 6, 2025: The federal appeal in the Zantac multidistrict litigation (MDL No. 2924) remains pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

This appeal challenges the December 2022 decision by Judge Robin L. Rosenberg of the Southern District of Florida, who dismissed all federal Zantac cases after excluding plaintiffs’ expert testimony on general causation. The court found that the expert opinions did not meet the admissibility standards under the Daubert rule, leading to the dismissal of thousands of cases.

A significant aspect of the appeal involves the “innovator liability” theory. This legal doctrine posits that brand-name drug manufacturers can be held liable for injuries caused by generic versions of their drugs, based on the argument that they are responsible for the original labeling and warnings. While some state courts, such as California’s in the T.H. v. Novartis case, have accepted this theory, the federal court in the Zantac MDL rejected it, predicting that most states would not adopt such a stance.

June 3, 2025:  In a new lawsuit filed yesterday, a New York resident has sued GlaxoSmithKline LLC, GlaxoSmithKline Holdings (Americas), Inc., Pfizer Inc., Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Boehringer Ingelheim USA Corporation, Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC, Sanofi US Services Inc., and Patheon Manufacturing Services LLC in Delaware Superior Court, alleging that her use of Zantac and its generic forms caused her to develop kidney cancer.

Her Zantac suit claims she regularly consumed both prescription and over-the-counter ranitidine-containing medications from approximately 2000 to 2018. As a result of this long-term use, she was diagnosed with kidney cancer, underwent multiple hospitalizations, surgeries, and treatments, and continues to suffer from permanent physical injuries. Kidney cancer claims are certainly among the strongest in this litigation.

The plaintiff alleges that she would not have taken ranitidine had she known it could expose users to NDMA, a probable human carcinogen. She asserts that her injuries were caused by the defendants’ failure to warn consumers, their manufacture and sale of an unreasonably dangerous drug, and their decades-long concealment of critical safety data—specifically the instability of ranitidine and its tendency to degrade into NDMA under normal conditions. She seeks compensatory and punitive damages for her injuries, emotional distress, and economic losses, emphasizing that the product’s labeling and safety information were inadequate during the time she used it.

May 15, 2025: The next Zantac trial is scheduled to begin on June 30, 2025, in Illinois.

April 14, 2025: Boehringer Ingelheim secured another defense win. A jury in Cook County Circuit Court, Illinois, found the company was not liable for plaintiff Vincent Fiduccia’s kidney cancer. This outcome adds to a string of defense verdicts or mistrials Boehringer has achieved in previous Zantac-related cases.

March 26, 2025: In a new lawsuit filed in Delaware, a plaintiff from Illinois alleges that years of using over-the-counter Zantac caused their kidney cancer. The plaintiff began taking Zantac in 2001 and continued using it regularly until 2020, unaware that the drug could degrade into harmful substances.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff purchased and used Zantac as directed, trusting it was safe. They were later diagnosed with kidney cancer, which required invasive medical treatment, hospitalizations, and long-term care. The lawsuit claims that the plaintiff suffered significant physical and emotional distress and that, had they been properly warned, they would never have taken the medication.

The plaintiff seeks damages for medical expenses, pain and suffering, and the lasting impact of their diagnosis.

February 20, 2025: The Illinois retrial of two Zantac plaintiffs continues, with Boehringer Ingelheim’s expert arguing that no studies definitively link Zantac to prostate cancer. But history tells a different story—GSK settled tens of thousands of these cases for a reason, agreeing to pay up to $2.2 billion rather than risk jury verdicts.

Boehringer Ingelheim presented two experts in the Illinois retrial, toxicologist Benjamin Hatten and urologist Robert Zimmerman, in an attempt to downplay the link between Zantac and prostate cancer. Hatten relied heavily on flawed animal studies that tested massive, unrealistic doses of NDMA, equivalent to taking hundreds of Zantac pills per day for 70 years—a scenario that does not reflect real-world human exposure. His dismissal of NDMA’s carcinogenic potential ignores the fact that the FDA recalled ranitidine specifically due to its ability to degrade into NDMA under normal conditions.

Meanwhile, Zimmerman’s testimony was limited to his clinical experience treating one of the plaintiffs, rather than offering meaningful scientific insight into Zantac’s risks. The defense’s strategy is clear: cherry-pick studies that obscure the dangers of NDMA while ignoring decades of regulatory and scientific concerns. But juries have already deadlocked on similar cases, showing that at least some reasonable people are not buying Boehringer’s weak excuses.

December 12, 2024:  There is an increasingly thriving Zantac state court docket in Philadelphia.  But there is a problem getting these cases to trial.

The plaintiffs have raised concerns regarding the impartiality of Judge Joshua Roberts, the supervising coordinating judge in the litigation. The plaintiffs are requesting Judge Roberts’ recusal due to a potential conflict of interest arising from his wife’s position at the law firm Reed Smith, which represents Zantac manufacturer GlaxoSmithKline in the broader national litigation. Glaxo has settled a lot of cases but they are still in the litigation. While the plaintiffs do not suggest that Judge Roberts would intentionally favor GSK, they argue that his close personal connections create an appearance of impropriety and raise concerns about unconscious bias.

The recusal request is not accusatory. No one questions Judge Roberts’ ethical intentions. But judges are humans.  Human nature might lead the judge to unintentionally influence rulings, especially given his wife’s professional ties to attorneys who may shape her career.

It will be exciting to get trials started in Philadelphia against Boehringer.  But the recusal controversy has directly affected the Zantac trial calendar. Previously, four bellwethers were scheduled between March and November 2025. However, these dates were postponed when the Pennsylvania Superior Court agreed to review Judge Roberts’ refusal to step down. Future trial dates will only be determined once the appellate court resolves the recusal issue.

November 22, 2024: There was yet another mistrial in a Zantac trial, this one in Oakland, California.

There is good news. The jury found Boehringer negligent.  But they were hung up on whether Zantac caused the plaintiff’s bladder cancer. It certainly seemed like a good case on liability.  He was diagnosed with bladder cancer at the unusually young age of 54, well below the median age of 73, despite leading a physically active lifestyle, abstaining from smoking, and having no significant history of alcohol use since 2002.

So he did not seem to have traditional risk factors for bladder cancer and Boehringer’s lawyers were making arguments about secondhand smoke, which just sounds desperate.  But half of the jurors did not believe Zantac caused this bladder cancer, leading to another mistrial.

We talk more about this case in the September 26 update just below.

November 15, 2024: Our firm is now focusing on claims related to liver and bladder cancer only.

November 7, 2024: One clear pattern emerging in Zantac litigation is the defense’s calculated strategy to delay and settle the best Zantac lawsuits.  By settling strong cases early and forcing weaker claims to trial, it creates a narrative of failure when you look at the win-loss scorecard.  The mistrials and defense victories in cases involving cancers with weaker NDMA links—like prostate cancer—can discourage some plaintiffs and delay momentum. But plaintiffs’ lawyers are learning from every trial, sharpening their strategies for future cases involving cancers with stronger causal evidence, like bladder and liver cancer. Boehringer continues to try these cases at its won risk.

October 25, 2024: A recurring theme in Zantac cases is how much weight jurors place on the FDA’s actions—or inactions—over the years. Defendants highlight that Zantac was approved after rigorous FDA testing. Plaintiffs point to the 2020 recall as proof that the drug was unsafe.

This push-and-pull complicates the narrative for both sides. If plaintiffs can show that NDMA risks were apparent long before the FDA acted, it strengthens their argument that manufacturers ignored warning signs. On the other hand, defense lawyers know from focus groups in this litigation and every other drug case that the argument that the product was deemed safe by the FDA for decades resonates with jurors.

October 9, 2024: Big news.  Glaxo has agreed to settle 80,000 cases for $2.2 billion.  This does not impact the trial going on right now in Oakland against Boehringer Ingelheim. When we know more, we will let you know.

September 26, 2024: Defendants have strategically settled every Zantac lawsuit scheduled for trial in California. But it appears they may now be ready to take a risk.

California’s first Zantac trial is set to begin with jury selection on September 30, 2024, at Alameda County Superior Court in Oakland, with opening statements expected on October 7. This case will be closely watched as it could set the tone for future Zantac lawsuits nationwide. The trial involves two plaintiffs, which is a dynamic we like.  Boehringer Ingelheim is the sole defendant.  GlaxoSmithKline settled last week. Boehringer Ingelheim looks like they are more willing to take risks in this litigation that GSK.  Good for them. But it also may prove their undoing.

September 21, 2024:  On Wednesday, a mistrial was declared in an Illinois case against Boehringer Ingelheim, where a man claimed that the company’s heartburn medication, Zantac, caused his prostate cancer.

Plaintiffs are 0-2-2 in the four Zantac trials that have taken place.  For plaintiffs, you can another trial when you have a tie.  But it feel like a loss.

But perspective is key here. Yes, the plaintiffs are winless in four efforts. But that is misleading.  The defendant’s strategy has been to  settle strong cases and bring the weaker ones to trial. It’s a sound tactic for the defense—you feel deflated even when you understand the game they’re playing. Additionally, as we discuss in our July 19 update below, these are not cancers with the strongest links to Zantac.  Colorectal and prostate cancer claims were left out of the MDL and those are the cases getting tried.

September 19, 2024: New Zantac lawsuits continue to be filed in Delaware. In one case filed last week, a Texas man alleges that long-term use of Zantac caused him to develop prostate and kidney cancer.

The plaintiff claims that had the defendants provided adequate warnings about the cancer risks associated with NDMA exposure, they would not have used the drugs. As a result, the plaintiff endured significant physical and emotional suffering, required extensive medical treatments, and sustained economic losses. The lawsuit seeks damages for these injuries and asserts claims under state law (and only state law).

August 23, 2024: Zantac lawyers are back in action. After a Delaware judge ruled that there was sufficient evidence to move forward with over 70,000 lawsuits alleging that Zantac – see the June 3 update below – plaintiff lawyers significantly ramped up their advertising efforts to solicit clients. According to X Ante, a research firm monitoring law firm advertising, spending on these ads surged to more than $1.8 million in June and July, compared to just $3,000 in May.

Our firm is taking new cases.  But we spend no money on marketing.

August 8, 2024: We had another setback for Zantac plaintiffs in state courts this week. An Illinois state judge declared a mistrial on Wednesday in a lawsuit where a man alleged that Boehringer Ingelheim’s over-the-counter Zantac caused his prostate cancer. The jury was unable to reach a unanimous verdict, so this was basically a victory for the defense. This comes right on the heels of the loss in the colorectal cancer case earlier this week.

August 6, 2024: In our last update, we talked about the Joiner case, although we did not reference it by name.  That was the colorectal cancer case for a woman who used Zantac for 15 years. GSK won that case this week, the jury did not find Glaxo responsible.

July 19, 2024: A new Zantac trial began yesterday in Cook County, Illinois.

This is a colorectal cancer case for a woman who used Zantac for 15 years.

In another courtroom in the same courthouse, a Zantac prostate cancer trial is about to get underway.

Colorectal and prostate cancers are not the diseases that are most linked to NDMA.  In fact, these were not lawsuits being pursued in the MDL, which is why these cases are going first in state court.  Still, there is strong evidence that NDMA can cause both types of cancer.  A win in either of these lawsuits would really be a game-changer in this litigation.

July 15, 2024: A new Zantac lawsuit on behalf of 18 plaintiffs was filed last week in the Superior Court of the State of Delaware against GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi, and Patheon.

None of the plaintiffs are from Delaware.  They hail from states across the country, such as California, Massachusetts, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and New York.   All 18 plaintiffs have been diagnosed with pancreatic cancer.

June 28, 2024:  A Connecticut state judge will include Sanofi-Aventis US LLC and a related corporate entity in a forthcoming decision on whether Zantac makers must face innovator liability claims in the state. This decision follows Sanofi’s suggestion that such a ruling would aid in finalizing a settlement.

What is innovator liability? Innovator liability is a legal doctrine that seeks to hold the original manufacturers of brand-name drugs accountable for injuries allegedly caused by generic versions of their drugs. The idea behind this claim is brand-name manufacturers control the labeling and warnings for both their own products and the generic equivalents, which are required to carry the same labels.

Only a few states – Massachusetts and California – have recognized innovator liability. But it is a new claim that has not been pushed in many jurisdictions. Hopefully, Connecticut follows its neighbor and adopts this theory which would help bring more worthy plaintiffs to this litigation.

June 24, 2024: Our firm is back to taking new Zantac lawsuits as long as your claim was not filed or registered in the MDL.  If you have a Zantac lawsuit, call us today at 800-553-8082 or reach out to us online.

June 3, 2024: In a major ruling that could have ramifications in the billions of dollars, Delaware state court Judge Vivian Medinilla has decided in a 102-page ruling that pharmaceutical giants Pfizer, GSK, and others will face state court trials over allegations that Zantac causes cancer.  The judge’s decision opens the door for 75,000 Zantac lawsuits to proceed in Delaware.

May 8, 2024: Pfizer has agreed to settle over 10,000 lawsuits alleging that the company concealed the cancer risks of its Zantac heartburn medication, following a pattern among other pharmaceutical giants.  This follows Sanofi’s agreement to pay over $100 million to resolve approximately 4,000 Zantac cases.

Again, we are all waiting for what we think will be a big win in Delaware, where over 70,000 lawsuits are awaiting the court’s ruling and the Chicago Zantac trial that is ongoing.

April 4, 2024: Sanofi announced on Wednesday that it has preliminarily agreed to settle approximately 4,000 lawsuits alleging that its now-discontinued heartburn medication, Zantac, causes cancer.

This preliminary settlement aims to address a multitude of personal injury claims filed against the French drugmaker across various states, including  New York, California, and Connecticut, but excludes cases in Delaware, where we are still waiting on the judge’s Daubert ruling from the hearings in January.

We are posting this to keep you updated.  Our lawyers are not taking new claims.

January 25, 2024:  The Daubert hearings are over in Delaware.  It is up to the judge now.

January 19, 2024:  Are the Zantac lawsuits back? Attorneys are expected to tangle in a Delaware courtroom next week in a multiday battle over the admissibility of expert reports and testimony related to thousands of lawsuits that have been filed in state court in Delaware. Superior Court Judge Vivian L. Medinilla is presiding over a state court MDL-like proceeding alleging Zantac caused cancer.  If these cases go well – i.e., the experts are permitted to testify at trial as they have been in California state court – the Zantac litigation will be back in the spotlight.

October 17, 2023:  We have been saying that you will not see any Zantac state court cases go to trial because they will be settled before trial – unless the case is terrible for plaintiffs.  The next Zantac cancer lawsuit scheduled for trial in California state court for November 13, 2023, has settled.

Additionally, three other claims in California set for bellwether trials have also been settled. How much are these Zantac settlements?  Big shocker – the details of these settlement agreements are confidential. GlaxoSmithKline says that these settlements do not signal readiness for larger Zantac settlement agreements to address pending claims across state courts. This is probably right but they are just kicking the can down the road.

August 16, 2023: Plaintiff filed the notice of appeal in the MDL this week.  We are a LONG WAY from an opinion from the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.

There are still 14,728 Zantac lawsuits pending in federal court.

July 30, 2023: We will start seeing more Zantac state court trials as we move forward.  The next trial date is in November in California state court. The bet here is that case settles before going to trial.  The defendants do not want to take these cases to a jury.

June 21, 2023: After this week’s arbitration decision, Sanofi is not obliged to cover any potential damages Boehringer Ingelheim might incur from the ongoing Zantac lawsuits in the United States. However, the legal storm is far from over for pharmaceutical firms like GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Sanofi, and Boehringer Ingelheim, who could still confront billions in potential settlement costs and legal penalties associated with the tens of thousands of unsettled lawsuits in state court, and possibly a revived MDL class action.

May 23, 2023: Several months ago, all Zantac lawsuits in the federal court MDL were dismissed after the judge ruled that the plaintiffs’ causation evidence was not admissible under the Daubert evidentiary standard.

Since then, the focus of the Zantac litigation has shifted to the state courts, where thousands of additional Zantac cases remain pending. Tomorrow, a judge in California will hold a Sargon hearing (the California equivalent of a Daubert hearing) to evaluate the reliability of the causation evidence. The outcome of this decision will have a significant impact on whether hundreds of Zantac cases can move forward in California and could effect how other states rule on the issue.

March 27, 2023: The news coming out of state court continues to be good. GSK’s attempt to exclude expert testimony linking Zantac to bladder cancer from an upcoming trial has been denied by  Alameda County Superior Court Judge Evelio Grillo.

March 7, 2023: The FDA is being questioned by Representative Rosa DeLauro regarding its response to a report that GSK hid and minimized cancer risks associated with its heartburn drug, Zantac, for 40 years. Zantac and its generics were pulled from the market in 2020 due to the formation of a probable carcinogen called NDMA. GSK was aware of this risk in 1983 but did not share its findings with senior US managers or the FDA. DeLauro is demanding to know if the FDA plans to investigate GSK’s actions and how it will hold the company accountable.

February 21, 2023:  Although the Zantac cancer cases in federal courts are getting dismissed following the ruling by the MDL Judge, there are still thousands of Zantac cases moving forward in state courts, particularly in California. Now a judge in a Zantac case in Alameda County Superior Court is being asked to revisit the admissibility of scientific evidence linking NDMA in Zantac to cancer. The case is scheduled to go to trial next week, and the judge now has to determine what expert testimony the plaintiff will be allowed to present. The outcome of this ruling could be very significant for the future of Zantac cases in state courts. Our take is that judges have minds of their own and they will not be bound by one judge’s view.  But if multiple judges rule similarly, that would have a chilling effect on other jurisdictions.

January 23, 2023:  Read this new pretrial order. Bundling up claims for appeal – which we hoped would be possible (see the update below) – will not fly with Judge Rosenburg. Many plaintiffs will not perfect their appeal.  So plaintiffs could win on appeal and have a fraction of the number of victims eligible to pursue compensation.  There are still viable state court claims.  But for many victims, this litigation has a bleak future.

January 17, 2023:A pending motion could impact the fate of thousands of Zantac plaintiffs on appeal. When the MDL judge ruled that the scientific evidence was inadmissible, that ruling effectively dismissed the roughly 2,000 cases filed and pending in the MDL. Those plaintiffs are now appealing the verdict, and the cases will be reinstated if they win that appeal.

However, the question is what happens to the thousands of unfiled Zantac claims parked on the registry. Right now, unless each of these plaintiffs pays the $400 filing fee and files their case, a victory on appeal won’t benefit them.

The current motion asks the MDL judge to “bundle” these registered claims so they can still be alive after the appeal without requiring all of them to file. A hearing was held last week; a ruling is expected any day.

Meanwhile, the state court Zantac claims continue to move forward.

December 6, 2022: Judge Robin L. Rosenberg dismissed every Zantac lawsuit filed in the MDL class action today. The judge’s opinion is that the plaintiffs’ lawyers could not present enough good science to prove that Zantac caused cancer. She found the plaintiffs’ experts used “unreliable methodologies” to conclude that Zantac’s NDMA caused cancer.

Did the judge get this ruling wrong? We believe so. There are grounds to appeal this ruling. However, this is a significant blow to plaintiffs’ hopes of receiving fair compensation in this litigation.

What’s next? What is next is an appeal to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. That will be a lengthy process. Meanwhile, the litigation will proceed in state court on claims filed in state court or still need to be filed.

This is a bad day.

November 2, 2022 Update: Last week, the Zantac MDL judge issued an Order directing the parties to submit supplemental briefing regarding what impact a new epidemiological study may have on the admissibility of expert witness testimony.

At the Daubert hearing last month, the MDL Judge expressed concerns from the bench about the admissibility of plaintiffs’ expert evidence on causation.

Shortly after that hearing, the judge allowed the plaintiffs to submit supplemental expert reports to introduce a new study. She also allowed these new experts to be deposed. Now she is allowing both sides to explain how this impacts the overall debate regarding the scientific evidence.

October 18, 2022 Update: The Zantac class action plaintiffs are asking the court for spoliation of evidence sanctions against defendant Sanofi-Aventis after the pharmaceutical company admitted to deleting thousands of potentially relevant emails.

The plaintiffs have also accused Sanofi of engaging in other delay tactics during discovery. The sanction sought by the plaintiffs is an adverse inference against Sanofi. This would give the plaintiffs a victory on specific contested factual issues in the case. The final brief in connection with this motion was filed last month and a hearing will likely be scheduled before a decision is made.

This could be important. But let’s be honest. Everything is secondary to the upcoming Daubert ruling.

October 1, 2022 Update: We await the judge’s rulings on Daubert. Plaintiff’s Zantac lawyers are optimistic that the judge will let a jury decide these claims.

September 21, 2022 Update: The most significant event in the history of the Zantac class action lawsuit began today. Daubert hearings began today. These hearings aim for the MDL judge to determine whether proposed expert witnesses for both should be permitted to testify.

To pass the Daubert “gatekeeping” threshold, the expert testimony must be scientifically sound and reasonably reliable. The Zantac plaintiffs need expert testimony to prove their claims that NDMA in Zantac caused them to develop one of the five “Zantac cancers.” If the Judge is not convinced that the expert evidence is reliable enough to be heard by a jury, the Zantac cancer lawsuits will be dismissed. Our Zantac lawyers think this is very unlikely.

September 14, 2022 Update: The Zantac class action MDL includes over 2,000 plaintiffs who have filed pending lawsuits in federal courts. But approximately 50,000 additional Zantac claimants have been permitted to file claims under the MDL Census Registry program. The Zantac Lawsuit Registry enables prospective plaintiffs to avoid bringing an actual civil lawsuit while still participating in the litigation and any eventual settlement. Yesterday, the Zantac MDL class action judge issued an Order confirming that the claim Registry will be officially closed today.

September 3, 2022 Update: Judge Rosenberg will hold hearings on the motions to exclude expert evidence on causation (known as Daubert motions) filed by both sides later this month. The outcome of these motions will be the most important event in the history of the Zantac cancer class action lawsuit.

The plaintiffs and the defendants filed motions to exclude general causation experts over the summer. The crux of the defense argument is that the epidemiological evidence linking ranitidine to cancer is not reliable enough to be heard by a jury. If the defense motion is granted,d it could cripple the Zantac lawsuits. Most Zantac lawyers think this is unlikely to happen. The science linking the five remaining cancers and NDMA is solid.

September 1, 2022 Update: Finally, some settlement news. Sort of. A group of 3 generic Zantac manufacturers agreed to pay $500,000 this week to settle Zantac cancer lawsuits that were set to go to trial in Illinois state court.

The plaintiff, Joseph Bayer, alleged he developed esophageal cancer after years of taking over-the-counter generic Zantac products. The settlement this week enabled the defendants to avoid what would have been the first Zantac cancer lawsuit to go to trial.

Do we now have the first settlement amount anchor for a Zantac lawsuit? The fact that the defendants were willing to pay $500,000 to avoid going to trial, in this case, is a good indication of what we can expect in the upcoming Zantac MDL bellwether trials. Below, our lawyers project Zantac lawsuit settlement amounts. This is higher than our average per-person settlement estimate.

August 21, 2022 Update: With the Zantac bellwether trials right around the corner, stocks of many big pharma companies that are defendants in the Zantac MDL (e.g., Sanofi and Glaxo) have been dropping significantly this week. The selloff in these stocks is mainly due to growing concerns from Wall Street about the potential liability hit the companies will end up taking from the Zantac litigation. Although there are 2,000 active lawsuits in the Zantac class action, thousands – likely 50,000 – of additional claimants have registered claims. This has sparked significant concerns that Zantac’s litigation price tag could be massive.

August 14, 2022 Update: Here is a roadmap to how their lawyers will defend Zantac cancer suits.

August 3, 2022 Update: There is a national Zantac class action lawsuit. But Zantac lawsuits have also been filed in state court in California. Four cases are set to go to trial in Alameda County in 2023 in February, May, August, and October.

This is helpful to push forward a Zantac settlement. Why? Trial dates put real pressure on the defendants in the Zantac lawsuit. Requiring them to battle in a favorable jurisdiction like Alameda County while also putting their foot on the gas in the federal MDL Zantac class action helps push the effort to make these defendants offer reasonable Zantac settlement amounts or risk a jury trial.

June 27, 2022 Update: Defendants in the Zantac cancer lawsuits filed motions to disqualify the plaintiff’s causation experts. The core of the challenge is that the evidence of the association between NDMA and Zantac is insufficient for the five types of cancer alleged to be connected to this heartburn medication.

These motions are commonly referred to as “Daubert” motions. This is a common tactic utilized by defendants in almost all product liability cases. Daubert challenges are rarely successful because the standard for the disqualification of expert opinions is very high. More to the point, our Zantac lawyers believe the evidence of a connection between the NDMA in Zantac and cancer is strong. The plaintiffs will file oppositions to the Daubert motions and a hearing on the challenges has been set for September.

June 4, 2022 Update: Zantac lawyers continue to battle over pre-trial discovery issues this week. The Zantac class action discovery judge recently granted a motion by the plaintiffs asking the Court to compel the defendants (Sanofi and Chattem) to allow the MDL plaintiffs to participate in the upcoming deposition of a Sanofi IT employee in a Zantac case in state court.

For the last 16 months, attorneys for the Zantac plaintiffs have accused Sanofi of deleting internal company emails. The plaintiffs want to depose the Sanofi IT employee because he allegedly had first-hand knowledge of the alleged email deletions. On Tuesday, Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart (interestingly, the same judge on the Trump Mar-O-Lago search warrant) granted the motion and gave the MDL plaintiffs one hour to question the IT employee at his deposition.

As the first Zantac bellwether trial date gets close, tensions are rising for lawyers on both sides. This is typically what you see in any class action lawsuit.

May 17, 2022 Update: The Zantac bellwether test trials in the class action appear to be solidly on track to begin as scheduled this October. Last week, the Zantac MDL Judge issued Pretrial Order #7,7 setting concrete deadlines for summary judgment motions in advance of trial. The deadline for defense motions will be June 13, 2022, with hearings set for September 20. The plaintiffs’ deadline for their motions will be July 6, with hearings set for September 28.

April 25, 2022 Update: The critical issue in the Zantac lawsuit is whether NDMA causes cancer. Plaintiff’s experts rely upon an article by Dr. Mira M. Hidajat, a British researcher, to support this scientifically uncontroversial opinion that NDMA causes cancer. This article does not address NDMA in Zantac. But experts, especially Dr. Mary Beth Terry, defending Glaxo and the other defendants, went to great lengths to cast doubt about whether the study was scientifically sound. So Zantac plaintiffs’ lawyers asked Dr. Hidajat – who has no prior experience as a litigation expert – to write a report to address the defense experts’ opinions. Naturally, the defense lawyers objected to this rebuttal expert. The court will hold a hearing on Friday to decide whether this expert will be permitted to testify.

SEE ARCHIVED UPDATES

About Zantac and Cancer

Zantac (ranitidine) belongs to a family of drugs called histamine-2 or H2 blockers. Ranitidine and other H2 blockers decrease the acid produced in the stomach. H2 blockers are called “antacids,” and the Zantac OTC versions are commonly used to treat and prevent heartburn (gastroesophageal reflux disease or GERD) and peptic ulcer disease. Prescription-strength Zantac is used to treat very severe heartburn and more serious conditions such as stomach/intestinal ulcers.

Zantac has been a very popular antacid drug since the 1980s. It was the 50th most prescribed drug with 15 million prescriptions a year. Millions more purchased the medication and its generic equivalent over the counter. Many taking Zantac had just mild gastroesophageal reflux disease and would have never taken the drug unless someone had advised them of the risk of developing cancer.

This drug was initially developed by the European pharmaceutical company Glaxo (n/k/a GlaxoSmithKline). It was approved as a prescription drug in the United States in 1983. Glaxo invested millions aggressively promoting the drug to doctors and the general public.

Zantac became one of the best-selling drugs in pharmaceutical history. It was the first medication to reach $1 billion in annual U.S. sales. Drugmakers made a fortune.

One of the keys to the marketing strategy was the emphasis that this acid reflux drug worked well – which it did – and that it was safe and harmless. But, as anyone reading this likely knows, ranitidine (the active ingredient in Zantac) lab testing found high levels of a chemical called NDMA. This contaminant is known to cause cancer.

In September 2019, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued a public safety warning about possible cancer risks from Zantac. In the wake of the FDA safety warning, there has been a Zantac recall and ranitidine medications have been abruptly pulled from shelves across the country.

The total number of filed MDL Zantac cancer lawsuits as of September 2022 is 2,000. But over 70,000 census forms have been filled. (This results from a tolling agreement that pushes back the statute of limitations if you properly register your claim.).

The gist of the Zantac lawsuit is straightforward. Plaintiffs allege that Zantac degrades over time and from exposure to heat and moisture, like most drugs. But unlike most drugs, Zantac degrades into dangerous levels of NDMA, a chemical most experts agree causes cancer. Thousands of people have filed Zantac cancer lawsuits alleging that they developed cancer due to their high levels of NDMA exposure.

N-Nitrosodimethylamine (“NDMA”) is an unstable organic chemical usually created unintentionally as a byproduct of specific industrial processes. NDMA is very toxic to the human body (especially the liver) and has been recognized as a carcinogen since the 1970s. Dimethylhydrazine, the “D” in NDMA, is a component of rocket fuel. Rocket fuel is about as healthy as you think.

NDMA Causes Cancer

Does Zantac cause cancer? It is hard to construct an argument against the notion that Zantac causes cancer. The evidence that NDMA causes cancer is overwhelming. No ranitidine lawsuit defendant will dispute that this contaminant is a carcinogen. (Update: This is wrong. Zantac defense lawyers struggle to admit the sky is blue.)

NDMA has repeatedly caused cancer in every animal lab test in the last 40 years. Zantac has the constituent molecules to form NDMA. Ranitidine medications degrade from chemical reactions caused by heat, humidity, and time into NDMA. They also degrade in the Zantac user’s stomach, particularly interacting with foods high in nitrates. There is further concern about how Zantac can degrade over time to form NDMA, necessitating shorter expiration dates and warnings about the associated risks.

So NDMA causes cancer. The compound is also listed as a probable human carcinogen by the World Health Organization (WHO), the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and various other organizations. The CDC points out the risks of NDM, even at low doses. Calling this contaminant a “probable carcinogen” is a dramatic understatement of the case.

The lawsuits claim the defendants knew NDMA causes cancer and the Zantac and continued to expose users to unsafe levels of NDMA. The defendants failed to disclose this risk to consumers on the drug’s label or through any other means and did not report these risks to the FDA. Research dating back to 1981, before Zantac entered the market, showed elevated rates of NDMA in Zantac.

So a core claim is that he defendants concealed the link between Zantac and NDMA from consumers by not reporting it to the FDA, which relies on drug manufacturers to bring new information about an approved drug to the agency’s attention. Manufacturers are required by regulation to submit an annual report to the FDA containing new information regarding the drug’s safety, including unpublished reports and summaries of published reports of new toxicological findings.

Defendants ignored these regulations and did not report significant new information affecting the safety or labeling of Zantac to the FDA. They never conducted or provided relevant studies to the FDA, nor proposed a disclosure noting the link between ranitidine and NDMA.

Because they never stepped up and properly disclosed the risk, they never proposed any labeling or storage/transportation guidelines that would have addressed this NDMA risk, preventing the FDA from rejecting any proposed warning or proposal for transport/storage. You have to keep in mind, too, that multiple alternatives to Zantac, such as Cimetidine (Tagamet), Famotidine (Pepcid), Omeprazole (Prilosec), Esomeprazole (Nexium), and Lansoprazole (Prevacid), do not pose the same risk.

Valisure NDMA Testing Findings NMDA in Zantac

FDA Tests on NDMA in Zantac

In September 2019, the FDA announced that it had conducted tests on ranitidine. The FDA’s laboratory tests also found NDMA in ranitidine medications. But the FDA found much lower levels than the Valisure tests. (The FDA tests were flawed. They did not use sodium nitrate which we think everyone will ultimately agree is critical if you want reliable results.) Even the “low levels” of NDMA found in the FDA testing were considered “unacceptable” and led to a public safety warning about the cancer risks.

New Zantac Studies

In December 2020, another study came out to give us a clear picture of what happened with Zantac and NDMA. The study linked increasing NDMA levels to the degradation of hydrochloride molecules in Zantac. It also lends new credence to the theory that heat that is created when ingesting the drug might contribute to the process that increases the NDMA levels.

(This is no surprise. The over-the-counter box for Zantac states “avoid excessive heat” and to store the drug below 77°F. Was the drug transported using temperature-controlled heating systems? Typically, no.)

Two articles, both published on January 29, 2021, detailed Valisure researchers’ findings on Zantac. One of them, published in JAMA, reported on a simulation of Zantac’s reactions to gastric fluids. The other, published in MedRxiv, also found that certain conditions facilitated Zantac’s transformation into NDMA.

NDMA Concentration Study

In the JAMA article, researchers found that Zantac converts into high NDMA concentrations. They combined simulated gastric fluid (SGF) with Zantac. After two hours, a 150 mg Zantac tablet converts into 947 nanograms.

This was almost 10 times the FDA’s acceptable daily consumption limit for NDMA. The researchers also found that increased nitrate concentrations caused the same tablet to convert into 320,000 ng.

Making matters worse, Zantac forms more quickly into NDMA if consumed with nitrates. Some Zantac lawsuit defendants encouraged users to take Zantac after eating nitrate-rich foods.

Bladder Cancer

The MedRxiv article reported on a cross-section analysis of cancer patients. Valisure researchers compiled data comprising over 10,000 of them. They narrowed it down to patients who used Zantac. The researchers found a positive association between Zantac use and bladder cancer, among others. (Below, our attorneys provide cancers that Zantac OTC and prescription might cause, with the statistics provided by the studies in terms of elevated risk).

What other kinds of cancer does Zantac cause? Our Zantac cancer lawyers believe that more types of cancer are also implicated.

Defendants Daubert Motion

Defendants in these cases know how difficult it is to argue that the NDMA in Zantac does not cause cancer. They will try. But their true focus will be rejecting scientific arguments as to specific cancers that can be caused by Zantac. They will make the plaintiffs prove their cancer diagnosis is from the NDMA in Zantac.

For those types of cancer that are more challenging to link to ranitidine, you can expect the defense lawyers to file what is called a Daubert motion. The purpose of a Daubert motion is to keep those cases out of the courtroom because there is not enough scientific evidence to link a specific cancer to Zantac.

The plaintiff lost this motion badly in the MDL and the court dismissed every Zantac lawsuit filed in federal court. But state court judges have seen it differently, and the cases are proceeding in state court.  Delaware is the epicenter of the Zantac litigation in 2024 and the judge there has agreed these lawsuits should go forward (this is also on appeal).

Zantac Defense Lawyers’ Plan of Attack

The defendants will continue to try to exploit what science does not yet fully understand. They will try to diminish the importance of any study that shows NDMA is a known carcinogen or that it is associated with an increased long-term risk of any specific cancer being addressed in the Zantac class action lawsuit.

For example, we do not know the specific amount of NDMA that causes an increased risk of cancer or the amount of NDMA individual plaintiffs were exposed to when they ingested Zantac. But our burden of proof is not this specific. Zantac attorneys have to make this clear to judges and juries.

Hopefully, the science will continue to deliver the evidence plaintiffs’ lawyers need before those motions are heard.

New Bladder Cancer Zantac Study

An American Journal of Gastroenterology-published study found that Zantac patients were more likely to develop bladder cancer compared to non-Zantac patients. Researchers gathered data from Scotland’s Primary Care Clinical Informatics Unit Research database.

They identified over 3,000 bladder cancer cases between 1999 and 2011. The researchers matched each case with no more than five controls. They accounted for age, gender, GP practice, and diagnosis date. The researchers identified Zantac, other H2 blockers, and proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) in the prescription records.

The researchers reported that short-term Zantac use increased the bladder cancer risk by 22 percent. Taking the drug for at least three years increased the risk of a bladder cancer diagnosis by 43 percent compared to non-users. The researchers found that proton pump inhibitor use, even long-term use, was not associated with bladder cancer. The researchers concluded that Zantac use, especially long-term use, increased the risk of bladder cancer.

What These Zantac Studies Cumulatively Show

Bigger picture, the latest studies demonstrate that the medical litigation on the association between ranitidine and Zantac continues to support plaintiffs’ attorneys’ theories of liability in the Zantac litigation of the health complications with Zantac.

Ultimately, even before the recall, there was information out there to warn of the ranitidine risk and allow patients to pursue ranitidine alternatives.

What Are Expected Individual Zantac Settlement Compensation Payouts?

The Zantac litigation will most likely be resolved with a global settlement of all cases. The Zantac lawsuit payouts will almost certainly be ranked into settlement tiers based on the severity of the plaintiff’s injuries and the strength of the claim. Cases in the top tier could be worth more than $500,000.

Second-tier cases may be in the $250,000 range. The lowest-tier cases will likely be worth $100,000 or less.

This Zantac lawsuit payout speculation – and, make no mistake, it is pure speculation – is based on previous mass tort cases with similar injuries. Our settlement amount prediction also assumes, as our lawyers believe, that this litigation will be very successful.

(Note: This was written some time ago.  These numbers have dropped dramatically as the litigation has progressed.)

When Will the Zantac Lawsuit Settle?

Victims want to know when the Zantac suits will settle. A global settlement in the Zantac litigation will probably not happen soon. Big mass tort class action lawsuits involving thousands of plaintiffs always take time to settle.

Right now, the litigation is preparing for the Daubert hearings and then trial. Our Zantac lawyers still get calls every day from new plaintiffs interested in bringing a Zantac cancer lawsuit.

The good news is Zantac is off the market. This helps facilitate a more speedy settlement for Zantac victims.

What is the key to global Zantac settlement? Getting these NDMA cancer cases to trial. The defendants keep setting state court claims before they get to trial.

Do You Qualify For A Zantac Lawsuit?

Our law firm is accepting new Zantac cases for anyone who meets the following basic criteria:

• You took a prescription or OTC Zantac on a daily or regular basis for at least one year
• After taking Zantac you received a cancer diagnosis for one of these five cancers: liver, stomach, bladder, pancreatic, or esophageal

Our firm is not handling cases where the plaintiff filed a lawsuit or registered their claim in the MDL in New York.

If you meet these criteria, you qualify for a Zantac lawsuit. You should call a Zantac lawyer today and we are ready to speak with you.

What Is the Risk of NDMA in Zantac?

People taking Zantac might have unknowingly been ingesting incredibly high levels of NDMA contamination into their system daily. Even the lower levels of NDMA found in the FDA testing are alarmingly high, and much more than the accepted safe daily limits for NDMA. Given the known potential of NDMA to cause cancer in lab animals, Zantac users may be at a significantly increased risk of various types of cancers.

NDMA ingestion from the use of Zantac may cause all types of cancer. Our Zantac lawyers talked about the five cancers that are being handled in the Zantac class action lawsuit. There are some cancers scientists may also link to NDMA in Zantac in the future.

These include breast, kidney, colorectal, prostate, and intestinal cancer. Why are these types of cancer not in the MDL? Because most Zantac lawyers do not believe that a Zantac lawsuit claiming one of these cancers will make it to trial. Because the science is not strong enough yet to support those claims.

What Do Plaintiffs’ Lawyers Think About the Expected Settlement Amounts of Zantac Lawsuits?

We talk above generally about the expected settlement amounts in the Zantac lawsuits. This is another way of asking the question. What are Zantac lawsuit lawyers thinking?

Our lawyers frequently discuss with other attorneys their thoughts on what they expect the settlement compensation payouts to be in the Zantac lawsuits. There are some mass torts out there that plaintiffs’ attorneys almost universally believe are slam-dunk cases that will have a very high settlement value.

So what about Zantac? There is no consensus among Zantac lawyers on what the settlement amounts might be in these cases. Some attorneys are very high on these cases. Our law firm believes Zantac compensation will be high in terms of jury payouts and settlement amounts in the Zantac class action.

Other Zantac lawyers are less impressed with what they think these cancer lawsuit settlement amounts will be in these cases. This is true even for some attorneys who are advertising online and on television. One reason why there are so many Zantac lawsuits is that the tolling agreement and short-form complaint make these cases easy and cheap to file. So lawyers who are not gung ho on the viability of these lawsuits are still bringing suits because the effort required to file a claim is so small.

So the take-home message is that there is a wide range of opinions on how successful the Zantac MDL litigation will be. That may not be the answer you want to hear. But our attorneys think it is important that you understand that different people have different views on what the Zantac compensation payout amounts will be. Again, our lawyers are bullish on what we think Zantac settlement amounts will ultimately be for the five cancers that remain in the Zantac class action lawsuit.

Who Will Be in This Zantac Class Action?

Prospective Zantac plaintiffs will include anyone who regularly used Zantac and was diagnosed with cancer. The highest individual payouts in these cases will have a cancer diagnosis with the five cancers most closely linked to NDMA and the gastrointestinal system, which the drug impacts. These include Zantac patients with the following cancers:

• Bladder (our lawyers believe bladder cancer cases are particularly strong in terms of linking bladder cancer to NDMA)
• Liver
• Stomach (include adenocarcinoma, carcinoid tumors, gastric lymphomas, and gastrointestinal stromal tumors)
• Esophageal
• Pancreatic (the risk may double from Zantac use)

Except for thyroid cancer, these are the cancers listed on the latest version (version 2) of the short-form complaint in the MDL. Our attorneys believe the cancers in bold have the strongest science in their corner. But all of these cancers are likely caused by excessive NDMA.

There is a spate of research now on NDMA and the type of cancers Zantac can cause. The Sloane Memorial Cancer Center in particular is expected to come out with research that will narrow down the cancers we are at greatest risk for with NDMA exposure.

Zantac Settlement Amounts

If you are thinking of filing a Zantac lawsuit, you want to know what the potential settlement amounts might be and the possible range of individual compensation payouts.

Our Zantac attorneys have shared some thoughts on what we believe could be the potential per-person Zantac payouts, as outlined above. Let’s reiterate: we have no real idea.  These cases are in wild flux.  It is hard to think of litigation that has had more ups and down at this stage. But let’s walk through it.

The most natural starting point is the Roundup lawsuits. This is a good comparison because the injury involved is cancer, and liability is similarly hotly contested, with strong legal representation on both sides.

The defendants will bring forward expert witnesses to argue that ranitidine is not harmful, just as experts testified passionately in defense of Roundup. However, our lawyers expect a similar outcome in terms of a settlement, potentially paying out over $10 billion in compensation.

The Roundup cases have averaged payouts well over $100,000 per person. The average individual Zantac settlement could be higher. Why might the Zantac lawsuits be worth more? Bayer is still, inexplicably, defending and selling Roundup, while Zantac has been pulled off the market. This reduces the need to defend the product.

Now, a word of caution. That last paragraph was written before the MDL judge dismissed all the federal court lawsuits. Has the projection for settlement amounts in these cases gone down since then? Yes. But the good news is that the outlook is more positive than it was just a few months ago. Many had written off these cases entirely.

Of course, you might be asking why the settlement amounts seem low for a cancer lawsuit, particularly when many of the claims are wrongful death lawsuits. It’s a valid question. The settlement value of a mass tort case is likely to be less than the trial value of an individual case. The trial value of successful Zantac cases could reach many millions of dollars. However, we cannot ignore that the defendants have won the early rounds of the settlement value battle. This could change – and it is already changing – but we need some trial victories to shift the momentum, instead of the losses we’ve seen in Illinois state court in the only case that has gone to trial so far.

Getting a Lawyer to Handle Your Zantac Lawsuit

If you have a Zantac cancer lawsuit, call us today at 800-553-8082 or reach out to us online.