Our attorneys also provide the latest updates from the Zantac class action lawsuit (including the disastrous news of the class action judge dismissing all of the federal court Zantac lawsuits. This page was updated on November 22, 2024.
If you have a Zantac claim that was not filed or registered in the MDL, call 800-553-8082 or contact us online. Right now, our firm is limiting our cases to bladder and liver cancer claims.
Zantac Cancer Lawsuit Updates 2024
December 17, 2024 – New Lawsuits
After the Glaxo Zantac settlement, new lawsuits continue to pour in against the other defendants. In one new lawsuit filed in Delaware last week, a plaintiff from Arizona alleges that the long-term use of Zantac caused their bladder cancer. The complaint names Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC, and Patheon Manufacturing Services LLC as defendants, claiming that the companies designed, manufactured, marketed, and sold Zantac and its generic forms without adequately warning consumers of its dangers.
December 15, 2024 – Philadelphia Trials
Four bellwethers were initially set between March and November 2025 in Philadelphia. But they have been postponed due to appellate review of a recusal motion against the presiding judge. New trial dates will be determined after the appeal is resolved.
December 2, 2024 – Breast Cancer Lawsuit
A California woman has filed a lawsuit against GlaxoSmithKline, claiming that her prolonged use of Zantac over 11 years caused her breast cancer. The plaintiff reportedly took brand-name Zantac and generic versions from 1997 to 2018. Her lawsuit alleges that the ranitidine in these products exposed her to NDMA, which ultimately led to her breast cancer diagnosis.
Our firm is focused on bladder and liver cancer claims in 2024.
November 22, 2024 – Another Zantac Mistrial
A California state judge declared a mistrial in a product liability case against Boehringer.
The case involved a bladder cancer survivor who alleged the company failed to disclose the cancer risks of its Zantac heartburn medication. After seven days of jury deliberations, the jurors agreed that Zantac was dangerous and that the company failed to warn about its risks. So it is good news the jury was strong on the core issues in the litigation. But they were evenly split (6-6) on whether the drug substantially contributed to man’s cancer, prompting the judge to declare a mistrial.
It is hard to declare a win after a mistrial. But this mistrial was the result of a case-specific issue of causation. The jury was crystal clear on Boehringer’s negligence.
October 9, 2024 – Huge Zantac Settlement
GSK reports said it will pay as much as $2.2 billion to resolve about 80,000 Zantac lawsuits. The deal would be implemented in 2025. The cases in the settlement are said to be 93% of outstanding claims.
This is just Glaxo, not Boehringer Ingelheim.
October 8, 2024 – New Bladder Cancer Trial Opens in California
October 7, 2024 – Zantac Appeal in Delaware
Defendants filed their brief to the Delaware Supreme Court last week, leaning heavily on arguments like “the MDL judge already decided this” and warnings that Delaware could become a “safe haven for mass tort claims” if the lower court’s decision stands.
More substantially, the defendants’ argument is that the plaintiffs’ experts failed to establish a clear “threshold dose” at which ranitidine or NDMA could be considered a cancer risk, and that they relied too much on studies unrelated to how people actually use ranitidine, such as NDMA exposure from food or industrial sources. While the Delaware trial court acknowledged these concerns, it ultimately found them unconvincing, arguing that Delaware law allows for a more lenient standard for expert admissibility—and perhaps more importantly, that the MDL judge misinterpreted the science from the start.
Plaintiffs, on the other hand, contend that the MDL’s rigid insistence on identifying a precise “threshold dose” imposes an unfair standard. This requirement essentially shuts the door on plaintiffs’ claims by forcing them to provide an exact number for cancer risk that the scientific community itself has not established. They argue that such a rigid demand is inconsistent with Delaware’s more nuanced approach, which considers the broader scientific evidence and recognizes the complexities of chemical exposure in real-world scenarios.
September 26, 2024 – First California Zantac Trial
The defendants have wisely settled every Zantac lawsuit coming up for trial in California. But it may be they are now ready to push their luck.
The first Zantac trial in California is slated to kick off with jury selection on next week in Alameda County Superior Court in Oakland. the trial is expected to begin on October 7, 2024. The outcome of Russell v. Boehringer Ingelheim will be closely watched as it may set the tone for future Zantac lawsuits across the country.
September 20, 2024 – Juries Struggling with Zantac Lawsuits
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.
This follows a similar deadlock in another Illinois case in August involving the same allegations. In our August 8 update, we talk about the mistrial in Kimbrow v. Boehringer Ingelheim. A mistrial was declared by Cook County Judge Gerald Cleary after only 22 hours of jury deliberation. The mistrial was partly prompted by a juror’s note stating, “I must leave. This has not been resolved.” This prostate cancer lawsuit will be retried.
The plaintiffs’ record is 0-2-2 in the four cases that have gone to trial.
These recent mistrials in the Zantac lawsuits feel like setbacks. Because they are. I’ll admit I’m surprised. I feel like every every layer of protection for people who took these drugs—the science, the regulation, the corporate ethics—was paper-thin. I think even the defendants though what jurors would see a latticework of errors and omissions and an unfailing pursuit of profits that led them to chose to ignore the all the warning signs of what we later learned about NDMA in Zantac. So I’ll admit I did not think plaintiffs would be winless at this stage of the game.
But it’s important to keep things in perspective. Yes, the plaintiffs’ record stands at 0-2-2 after four cases have gone to trial. But that deflated feeling is defendants’ strategy: settle the good cases like they just did (see the last update) and take the cases they have the best chance of winning to trial. It is a good strategy for defendants – you feel deflated even when you understand the tactic they are employing to manipulate you.
Also remember that colorectal cancer and prostate cancer claims were not included in the MDL because of a weaker connection to Zantac.
So just keep in mind that we are just a few rounds in what will be a much longer fight.
September 18, 2024 – Two Zantac Settlements in California
Glaxo announced on Wednesday that it had reached two confidential settlements in California state court involving lawsuits that alleged its heartburn drug, Zantac, caused cancer. The financial terms of the settlements were not disclosed.
The lawsuits claimed that Zantac was responsible for bladder cancer in one case and colorectal illness in another. Both cases have now been resolved through these settlements.
GSK’s obvious strategy is to try weak cases. It believes it will almost certainly win and settle lawsuits where there is a big risk of a plaintiff’s verdict.
August 28, 2024 – Zantac Appeal in Delaware
The Supreme Court of Delaware has accepted an interlocutory appeal in the Zantac litigation, where nearly 75,000 plaintiffs claim that the carcinogen NDMA in Zantac caused their cancers.
The litigation is divided into two tracks: one addressing whether ranitidine can cause cancer (general causation) and another for selecting representative cases for trials. The Superior Court had previously denied the defendants’ motion to exclude the plaintiffs’ expert testimony on causation, ruling that experts could use NDMA studies and that Delaware law does not require proving a threshold dose for causation.
The defendants sought immediate appellate review, which the Superior Court initially denied, deeming the issues not substantial enough for interlocutory review. However, the Supreme Court of Delaware has now decided to accept the appeal, noting the significant implications of the case on mass tort litigation and the Daubert standard, allowing the appeal to proceed while other aspects of the case continue.
Is this good news? No. But it good that the judges will allow the case to continue in the meantime while we wait for a ruling from the Delaware Supreme Court. If the claims were to settle before that, it is certainly leverage the defendants have in settlement negotiations in the Delaware cases. We cannot deny that.
August 23, 2024 – Zantac Lawsuits to Proceed in Connecticut State Court
The court found that it had jurisdiction based on several factors: the defendants’ substantial business activities in Connecticut, their consent to jurisdiction by registering to do business in the state, and the connection between the defendants’ activities in Connecticut and the plaintiffs’ claims.
The court also rejected the argument that it lacked jurisdiction over claims based on specific dates of use and manufacturing, stating that this issue relates to the merits of the case and should be addressed through other procedural means, not a motion to dismiss.
August 19, 2024 – Florida State Court Rejects Plaintiffs’ Zantac Experts
Florida is apparently an inhospitable venue for Zantac lawsuits. A Florida judge rejected plaintiffs’ experts in a prostate cancer lawsuit there.
Thankfully, there are 49 other states.
August 15, 2024: No Recusal in Pennsylvania
In our post on July 11, 2024, we discussed concerns raised by plaintiffs in Philadelphia’s Zantac mass tort litigation regarding potential conflicts of interest involving Judge Joshua Roberts. The plaintiffs requested his recusal due to his wife’s position at Reed Smith, which represents GSK in other jurisdictions.
Judge Roberts denied the motion to recuse, stating that he does not believe his impartiality could be compromised by his wife’s affiliation with Reed Smith. He acknowledged the sensitivity of the situation and mentioned that if he denied the motion, he would consider certifying the order for immediate appeal, giving the plaintiffs the option to challenge the decision. However, this could cause delays that the plaintiffs wish to avoid.
During the hearing, the plaintiffs argued that the judge’s wife’s role and Reed Smith’s blog posts—where opinions about the Zantac litigation were expressed—created an appearance of partiality. Reed Smith is part of a defense lawyer blog that is a well-written but annoying concludes that defendants should prevail in every legal dispute. It is the ultimate shrill for drug and medical device companies.
Judge Roberts does not see a connection between his wife’s work and the blog posts, suggesting that this reasoning could require him to recuse himself from any case involving Reed Smith, which he found unreasonable—though perhaps that perspective is open to debate.
August 8, 2024: Mistrial Declared in Illinois Zantac Cancer Case
An Illinois state judge declared a mistrial on Wednesday in a lawsuit where a man claimed that Boehringer Ingelheim’s over-the-counter Zantac caused his prostate cancer. The jury indicated they were unable to reach a unanimous verdict. This follows a defense verdict in a colorectal cancer case earlier this week.
August 5, 2024: Zantac Defeat in Illinois
In an Illinois state court, the jury in the Joiner case determined that GSK was not responsible for the plaintiff’s colorectal cancer.
July 28, 2024: Zantac Settlement
There was a settlement announced in Kimbrow v. GlaxoSmithKline, yet another prostate cancer lawsuit pending in Illinois
July 20, 2024: Trial Update
There are two Zantac trials going forward right now. I have not named the trials so we should do that now to make future updates easier.
The first case, Joiner v. GlaxoSmithKline, is the colorectal cancer lawsuit that began on Thursday. Gross v. Boehringer Ingelheim – again, Glaxo settled with the plaintiff before trial so it is just Boehringer – started yesterday. The plaintiff in that lawsuit alleges Zantac was a substantial contributing cause of his prostate cancer.
July 19, 2024: Two Zantac Trials
The Zantac trial that started yesterday was a colorectal cancer lawsuit. In the same courtroom, another Zantac trial will soon be underway involving a claim that NDMA in Zantac caused the plaintiff’s prostate cancer. The plaintiff in that case settled last month with Glaxo but there was no settlement with Boehringer Ingelheim.
July 18, 2024: New Zantac Trial Begins
A new Zantac trial started today in state court against GlaxoSmithKline and Boehringer Ingelheim. The MDL involved five types of cancer:
This case heading to trial is a colorectal cancer lawsuit. With the MDL in the rearview mirror for now, plaintiffs have more flexibility to bring lawsuits involving other types of cancers. Some Zantac lawyers were smart enough to pursue these claims from the beginning in state court.
July 11, 2024: Plaintiffs In Philadelphia Mass Tort Request Recusal Of Judge Joshua Roberts
There is also an increasingly thriving Zantac state court docket in Pennsylvania. The plaintiffs in Philadelphia’s mass tort are requesting the recusal of the supervising coordinating judge, Judge Joshua Roberts of the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, due to potential conflicts of interest.
The plaintiffs argue that Judge Roberts’ wife’s position at the law firm of Reed Smith, which represents Zantac manufacturer GlaxoSmithKline in national litigation, creates an appearance of impropriety and potential unconscious bias.
There is no claim Judge Roberts would intentionally try to steer rulings to Glaxo. This recusal has a far more respectful spirit. But the fear is it is human nature to side with your own people.
This judge will be ruling on motions filed by lawyers he has probably spent meaningful time with over the years at Christmas parties and whatnot – and attorneys who have a direct influence on the trajectory of his wife’s career. So despite their confidence in Judge Roberts’ ethical intentions, the plaintiffs believe his wife’s role could influence the case’s outcome.
You have to live with this kind of stuff when you live in Mayberry. But Philadelphia is a big town. Why not have a judge with no appearance of a conflict?
July 2, 2024: GSK Settles Another Zantac Lawsuit
GSK has settled another Zantac lawsuit with a confidential agreement in Illinois. That lawsuit claims that Zantac caused the plaintiff’s prostate cancer.
June 14, 2024: Now Accepting New Zantac Claims
Our law firm is back to accepting new Zantac lawsuits if you did not file a lawsuit or register your claim in the MDL. This confirms what we have been telling you: this litigation is back on track.
June 3, 2024: Delaware Judge Rules Pharma Companies Must Face State Court Trials
In the best news in this litigation in a long time, a Delaware judge ruled that GSK, Pfizer, and other pharmaceutical companies must face state court trials for claims that their former heartburn drug Zantac causes cancer.
Superior Court Judge Vivian Medinilla determined that the evidence presented by consumers is valid and warrants a jury’s assessment. Again, this impacts about 75,000 lawsuits that have been filed in Delaware following the federal case dismissals.
May 24, 2024: Chicago Jury Determines Zantac Not Responsible For Woman’s Colon Cancer
A Chicago jury determined on Thursday that Zantac heartburn medication and its generic counterparts, sold by GlaxoSmithKline and Boehringer Ingelheim, are not responsible for an Illinois woman’s colon cancer and her subsequent debilitating symptoms.
I was bracing you for this verdict in the last update, right? Colon cancer cases will be difficult to win for sure, which is why they let this one go to verdict.
It is unfortunate this woman will not get a recovery. She has certainly suffered a great deal. But it does not mean a lot in the overall scheme of the litigation. Keep in mind colorectal cancer was not one of the diseases being pursued in the MDL because the link was not as strong as the five types of cancer that were being pursued.
May 23, 2024: Plaintiff’s Attorneys Ask For $640 Million Compensation
Yesterday, Plaintiff’s attorneys asked for $640 million in compensation in the Chicago colon cancer Zantac lawsuit. In their closing statement, they contended that the companies failed to warn consumers about the dangers of NDMA, a carcinogen found in Zantac, which the plaintiff took daily from 1996 to 2014. They accused the companies of failing to conduct long-term studies or warn consumers that refrigerating the drug or avoiding it at mealtimes could mitigate NDMA formation. There should be a verdict today or tomorrow. From the perspective of the larger litigation, this is a relatively risk-free trial. The science is not as strong on colon cancer as other conditions. So it is easy to chalk it up as a tough case if the plaintiff loses. But if plaintiff wins, the take-home message will be the liability case is so strong, any case that gets to a jury will be a win for plaintiff. This could reignite the litigation and lead to more attorneys taking new cases again.
May 19, 2024: GSK Faces Whistleblower Lawsuit
GSK is facing a whistleblower lawsuit that could potentially cost it billions of dollars, filed by the laboratory that revealed the presence of a probable carcinogen in Zantac. The lawsuit alleges that GSK concealed Zantac’s cancer risks for decades while Medicare, Medicaid, and other government health programs covered prescriptions for the antacid.
May 10, 2024: Zantac Trial Plaintiff
The plaintiff in the Zantac trial that started last week is an 89-year-old. An Illinois woman who had been using over-the-counter Zantac for almost 20 years. She was diagnosed with colon cancer in 2015.
May 8, 2024: Pfizer Agrees To Settle Over Ten Thousand Lawsuits
Pfizer has reached agreements to settle more than 10,000 Zantac lawsuits, surpassing Sanofi’s recent settlement of 4,000 lawsuits. The companies want these lawsuits to go away. They have started a trial in a colorectal cancer lawsuit in Illinois, probably because that is not one of the stronger cancers linked to NDMA. But even that is a risk they might bail out on and settle before a verdict.
We are also waiting to see what happens in Delaware, where nearly 75,000 lawsuits have been consolidated. If the judge lets those cases move forward—as we expect—there will likely be many more settlements to come.
May 2, 2024: Valadez Zantac Case Goes To Trial
In the first U.S. jury trial out of thousands of similar cases, lawyers for Angela Valadez, an 89-year-old Chicago woman, claim that drugmakers GSK Plc and Boehringer Ingelheim GmbH prioritized profits over safety by concealing the cancer risks of their heartburn medication, Zantac. Valadez, who used Zantac for 18 years, developed colorectal cancer and is now seeking $640 million in damages. Her lawyer alleges that GSK knew about the cancer risks shortly after developing Zantac in 1983 but failed to warn consumers, even withholding crucial study results from U.S. regulators for 37 years. Pfizer settled its case with Valadez earlier. Sanofi is not named in her suit. I’m betting his case will not go to verdict. I think GSK will pay whatever it takes to make this case go away.
April 22, 2024: Bl0omberg Reports On Zantac Settlements
Bloomberg is reporting Zantac settlement we talked about in our last update was for approximately $25,000 a case. That is certainly way below – way below – what the original values of these claims were thought to be.
April 4, 2024: Sanofi SA Settles Approximately 4,000 Lawsuits
Sanofi SA has reached a settlement in approximately 4,000 lawsuits where it was accused of failing to warn that its Zantac heartburn medication could potentially cause cancer. This settlement, the first significant resolution regarding Zantac-related cases, is limited to litigations outside Delaware. We are still waiting on the Daubert ruling in that case which involves 75,000 Zantac lawsuits. The exact terms and the financial implications for Sanofi remain undisclosed. The defendants do not want to let one of these cases go to trial. (We will continue to provide Zantac news and updates because that is what we do. But we are still not taking new Zantac claims.)
February 29, 2024: Glaxo Agrees To Another Confidential Settlement
Glaxo agreed to yet another confidential Zantac lawsuit settlement in California in Boyd/Steenvoord, a case headed for trial on April 2, 2014. The company has stated that this settlement demonstrates its preference to sidestep the disruptions associated with extended legal proceedings. Another way of saying it? The defendants are scared to take one of these lawsuits to trial.
February 2, 2024: Glaxo Reaches Confidential Settlement
Glaxo confirmed that a confidential settlement had been reached with David Browne, effectively resolving his Zantac lawsuit scheduled for trial on February 20, 2024.
May 24, 2023: Delaware Judge Decides How To Proceed With 77,000 Zantac Lawsuits
A judge in Delaware has decided on how to proceed with 77,000 Zantac lawsuits filed in the state. Delaware Superior Court Judge Vivian Medinilla issued a case management order that delineates a process for selecting bellwether plaintiffs and establishes a trial precisely to determine if Zantac causes various forms of cancer.
May 23, 2023: Federal Court Zantac Lawsuits Dismissed
The federal court Zantac lawsuits were dismissed after a Daubert hearing in the MDL class action. There is a Sargon hearing in California state court on Wednesday. Sargon and Daubert are the courts performing its “gatekeeping” function to exclude speculative and unreliable expert testimony, ensuring expert opinions are based on a sound foundation of facts and analysis. The court must ensure that the expert possesses appropriate qualifications and that the evidence or opinion offered is based on scientifically valid reasoning and methodology. We should have won the Daubert hearing in the MDL. There is hope that this Sargon hearing will have a very different outcome.
May 8, 2023: Notice Of Appeal Sent To 11th Circuit Court Of Appeal
The notice of appeal was sent to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeal. Is it a long road from here? Yes.
January 27, 2023: Consolidated Zantac Class Action-Type Lawsuit Expected
There will be a consolidated Zantac class action-type lawsuit, after all, albeit on a more limited scale. The New York State Litigation Coordinating Panel consolidated 40 state court Zantac claims and said future Zantac lawsuits in New York will also be consolidated.
January 23, 2023: No Registry Appeals
There will be no registry appeals. The tolling on these claims “will expire on or about April 5, 2023.” The judge will not – inexplicably to us – allow plaintiffs to bundle up complaints to perfect appeals.
This means that plaintiffs must file a regular lawsuit with a standard filing fee to maintain a claim for appeal. Many lawyers and victims will not want to front this cost, and cases will be dismissed.
Even if plaintiffs prevail on appeal, those registry plaintiffs who have not filed a lawsuit will be time-barred from bringing suit.
December 25, 2022: Defendants Confirm Confidential Settlement In California
The Zantac lawsuits got some life this week when the defendants confirmed a confidential settlement in a California state court case. The case, Goetz v. GlaxoSmithKline, was headed for trial in the California Superior Court for Alameda County (Oakland) in February.
Sanofi and Pfizer settled the case, reminding us that not every state court judge will see this litigation the way Judge Rosenberg does. There are still many pending Zantac lawsuits in the state courts, including the consolidated proceedings in California.
December 7, 2022: Appeal To 11th Circuit Court Of Appeals Expected
Is everything always better after a night’s sleep? As it turns out, not really. What is next in the Zantac MDL class action? There will be an appeal to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. Will an appeal be successful? We are hopeful, but that is hard to project. Cases that have not been filed or Zantac cancer lawsuits in state court in places like Illinois, California, Illinois, and Delaware will continue to move forward, hopefully with judges that have a less restrictive view of what is required to allow a jury to decide these claims.
December 6, 2022: Federal Judge Dismisses Every Zantac Claim In MDL
Today, the federal judge overseeing the Zantac class action lawsuit has dismissed every Zantac claim in the MDL. In a lengthy Order, the court ruled that the Plaintiffs failed to meet their scientific burden of proof showing that the NDMA in Zantac increased the risk of developing cancer. This is the worst possible outcome and could ultimately blow up this litigation. Yes, plaintiffs will appeal to the 11th Circuit, and, yes, we think the trial judge’s ruling is incorrect. But this is a dark day in the Zantac litigation
Zantac Cancer Lawsuit
Zantac (ranitidine) is an antacid that has been around since the 1980s and is available in prescription and over-the-counter forms. GlaxoSmithKline initially developed and released Zantac, but it was widely available in generic versions manufactured by various companies.
Zantac was used to treat gastroesophageal reflux disease and peptic ulcer disease. The drug was popular because it worked. But Zantac contained a hidden carcinogenic chemical. This has led to thousands of Zantac lawsuits by people who regularly used the drug and were subsequently diagnosed with cancer.
In 2017, Zantac was used regularly by 15 million people in the U.S. Many of these Zantac users took the drug every day for long periods under the assumption that it was perfectly safe.
In 2018, random quality testing found that the popular drug contained very high levels of a chemical called NDMA (N-Nitrosodimethylamine). NDMA is highly toxic to the human body and is a known carcinogen. The levels of NDMA in Zantac were so high that the FDA issued a public safety warning, and Zantac was promptly pulled off retail shelves across the country.
This quickly led to a wave of Zantac lawsuits by individuals claiming that their exposure to NDMA in Zantac caused them to develop cancer. Zantac lawsuits have been filed and consolidated into a Zantac MDL in the District of New Jersey.
The Core Zantac Claims
These Zantac suits claim the defendants could have tested Zantac for NDMA, warned the FDA, doctors, and Zantac patients of the concerns they should have had, shortened expiration dates, packaged this drug differently, and stored and transported Zantac at moderate heat and humidity levels.
The defendants should have known of the risk of NDMA in Zantac. The drug’s molecular structure would have put a reasonable drug manufacturer on notice of the drug’s propensity to degrade into NDMA. N-Nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA) is formed from N-nitroso (N) and Dimethylamine (DMA), and Zantac has both. So without any other compounds, it can degrade to produce NDMA.
Studies were also available to alert the defendants that heat and humidity could further compound the problem. The degradation with moisture or high temperatures can occur externally and inside a Zantac patient’s stomach. Moreover, Zantac, in combination with high nitrate foods, can cause further degradation, producing cancer-causing NDMA. This is because sodium nitrite, commonly found in the body through dietary intake, reacts with ranitidine in the acidic environment of the stomach. This leads to the formation of NDMA. Studies show that this reaction can produce significant amounts of NDMA, with levels reaching hundreds of thousands of nanograms (ng), far exceeding the FDA’s allowable daily limit of 96 ng. This elevated exposure to NDMA is concerning because it is a known carcinogen.
So the core of these claims is that Zantac breaks down into NDMA, and the defendants should have warned about the problem and issued a Zantac recall much sooner. Zantac turns into NDMA after it is produced. It breaks down in the Zantac patient’s stomach. It breaks down in combination with certain foods. It breaks down in the presence of heat and moisture. It even breaks down with the mere passage of time. So there is a cumulative effect of how NDMA degrades to cause cancer.
So let’s break that down for an individual Zantac patient. Zantac is typically taken one to two tablets of Ranitidine a day for years. One tablet of Zantac can contain over 3,000 times the FDA-acceptable daily limit of NDMA. So Zantac users were too staggering doses of NDMA over an extended period. Is anyone surprised that over 70,000 brought a Zantac claim alleging the drug caused their cancer?
What did the defendants have actual knowledge of these risks? Zantac lawsuits say they did. Specifically, they allege that GlaxoSmithKline, the developer of ranitidine, was aware of the potential for NDMA formation as early as the 1980s but failed to disclose this information to regulators and the public. GSK is accused of concealing critical data, misleading regulators like the FDA, and downplaying the risks associated with ranitidine’s degradation into NDMA.
Zantac Lawsuits Should Be Resolved in a Global Settlement
[Note: this was written before the MDL judge dismissed the federal court cases.]Our attorneys don’t know precisely what lawsuit individual settlement compensation payouts might be at this stage. But we can be certain that they will eventually be resolved in a global settlement. This is how all consolidated mass torts eventually get resolved (if they are not dismissed – that is not an unimportant caveat). (Update: that caveat now looms large in 2024, as we discuss above.)Since the formation of the Zantac MDL in 2019, the MDL judge has presided over a consolidated civil discovery process while more Zantac cases have continued to be filed. The discovery phase has focused on developing scientific causation evidence on both sides.
The discovery phase of the Zantac litigation will conclude next year, and then the litigation will move into the bellwether trial phase. This is where jury trials are held in a handful of sample Zantac cases.
The results of these test trials are used to facilitate settlement negotiations in which the defendants agree to pay a sum of money to resolve most of the Zantac lawsuits (except for the opt-outs). In mass torts, this is called a “global settlement.”
Example Zantac Lawsuit
For context, let’s look at a newly filed Zantac lawsuit for an example of the facts you will see in one of these claims.
New York resident Bennett Cohen became one of the newest plaintiffs in the Zantac litigation. Cohen filed a Complaint against a group of 13 defendants, including brand-names Zantac manufacturers and generic ranitidine manufacturers.
Cohen’s Complaint alleges that he regularly used brand-name Zantac and generic ranitidine in prescription and over-the-counter forms from 1995 to 2012. Cohen asserts that his regular use of Zantac and ranitidine over these 17 years directly led to his prostate cancer diagnosis in 2011. That is exceptionally long-term use which means this man’s cumulative exposure to ranitidine hydrochloride over time was likely very high.
What Will Zantac Settlement Amounts Look Like?
This litigation has had many ups and down. The big event was one judge—one person—decided to dismiss all of the lawsuits in federal court. That was a huge blow and it knocked back the settlements that came after to an average of around $20,000. Those Zantac settlements, that we discuss above in the comments, involved a complicated tiered points system in which each plaintiff is ranked based on the severity of their injuries. For the Zantac lawsuits, it would be the length of Zantac usage, the age of the plaintiff, and other factors. Plaintiffs ranked in the highest tiers get larger payouts and those in the lower settlement tiers get smaller settlement payouts.
This is an overly simplified example of what the global settlement in the Zantac litigation should eventually look like. The only thing we don’t know at this point is how much the defendants will have to pay out for the settlement.
The size of any individual Zantac settlement payout will depend on
-
- how many Zantac lawsuits are pending at the time (how many cancers survive pretrial motions),
- how strong the causation evidence is, and
- the results of the first bellwether ranitidine trials.
Let’s be candid: the projected settlement amounts in the Zantac litigation have decreased significantly compared to initial expectations. Early on, we did not foresee – though we feared – the mass dismissal of all federal Zantac lawsuits by the MDL court, which dealt a major blow that many Zantac lawyers thought at the time was fatal to these claims.
Now, recent developments in Delaware have shifted the momentum. The tide appears to be turning, with new rulings that revived the litigation. This shift brings renewed hope for fair settlement payouts, particularly in the state court cases. There is now a realistic chance that the projected settlement values could rebound, potentially reaching the six-figure range that was anticipated at the outset of the litigation.
Did the Defendants Know That Zantac Could Cause Cancer?
Medical literature existing at the time Zantac entered the market highlighted that DMA could potentially transform into NDMA in the human body. Nitrates, commonly found in food and the human body, can be reduced to nitrites by bacteria and enzymes, which then react with DMA to form NDMA. The plaintiffs argue that this biochemical pathway was well-documented and should have alerted the defendants to the risks posed by their product.
Plaintiffs argue that the defendants knowingly ignored warning signs that Zantac’s active ingredient, ranitidine, degraded into a carcinogen known as NDMA. Despite internal studies and evidence of discoloration and degradation of the pills, defendants failed to test for NDMA and continued to market Zantac as a safe and effective heartburn treatment. Plaintiffs contend that this negligence led to serious health consequences, including cancer.
Why? The argument is not a hard sell: these are drug companies that prioritized profits over safety, hiding the instability of the molecule and not conducting necessary tests until a federal recall prompted a risk assessment, which showed a high risk for the presence of NDMA.
Every Zantac lawsuit contends that the defendants either ignored or actively concealed these risks, failing to conduct adequate testing for NDMA, provide necessary warnings, and ensure proper storage and transportation conditions to prevent NDMA formation. This, according to the plaintiffs, led to severe health consequences for consumers who ingested Zantac.
The plaintiffs seek damages for these health issues, accusing the defendants of prioritizing profit over consumer safety and engaging in a systematic effort to downplay and hide the drug’s risks.
How Awful Is NDMA for You?
This is a rhetorical question. NDMA is pure poison. It is an exceptionally hazardous chemical known for its potent carcinogenic properties. It forms both through industrial processes and natural occurrences. Classified as an N-nitrosamine, NDMA belongs to a family of chemicals long recognized for their cancer-causing potential.
The harmful effects of NDMA have been well-documented for over four decades, with research showing that it induces cancer in nearly every laboratory animal exposed to it. A news article from 1979 highlighted that NDMA has caused cancer in nearly every laboratory animal tested. The extensive evidence highlights the serious risks posed by even minimal exposure to this compound.
In 2024, NDMA is not produced or used commercially in the United States, except for research purposes, such as in animal studies where it serves as a tumor initiator. Both the Environmental Protection Agency and the International Agency for Research on Cancer classify NDMA as a probable human carcinogen.
The World Health Organization provides conclusive evidence that NDMA is a potent carcinogen, associating its consumption with increased risks of gastric and colorectal cancers. The Department of Health and Human Services also anticipates NDMA to be a human carcinogen, based on findings that it caused tumors in multiple species of experimental animals, primarily affecting the liver, respiratory tract, kidney, and blood vessels.
The FDA has similarly recognized NDMA as a chemical that “could cause cancer” in humans. Historical actions reflect this understanding; as early as 1980, products containing unsafe levels of NDMA and other nitrosamines were subject to recalls by manufacturers or directed by the FDA. More recently, from 2018 onwards, several generic drugs for treating high blood pressure and heart failure, including valsartan, losartan, and irbesartan, were recalled due to nitrosamine impurities that did not meet FDA safety standards.
A little bit of NDMA will not harm you. The FDA has set a permissible daily intake limit for NDMA at 96 nanograms. However, recent tests revealed that a single pill of ranitidine could contain NDMA levels exceeding 3,000,000 nanograms, which is incredible.
One thing is for sure numerous studies confirm NDMA as a mutagen, causing mutations in human and animal cells. Animal studies consistently show that NDMA exposure leads to various cancers, including in the kidney, bladder, liver, lung, and other organs across multiple species.
Is NDMA in Zantac from a Manufacturing Error?
A manufacturing defect does not cause the high levels of NDMA from Zantac. NDMA is a natural consequence of ingesting ranitidine, the active ingredient in Zantac. The Ranitidine molecule contains NDMA, and nitrate is also in Zantac and is also produced by the body. So every dosage of Zantac exposed the user to NDMA.
Are the Zantac Lawsuits Still Alive in July 2024?
The Zantac lawsuit are still alive. Plaintiffs lost, at least for now, in the MDL, as detailed aboved. But there are cases in state courts around the country with 75,000 cases in Delaware alone. Our law firm is still taking new Zantac lawsuit.
Call a Zantac Lawyer
If you have a Zantac claim that was not filed or registered in the MDL, call 800-553-8082 or contact us online if you were a Zantac user and were diagnosed with bladder cancer, liver cancer, stomach cancer, pancreatic cancer, esophageal cancer, colon cancer, kidney cancer, prostate cancer with a diagnosis under the age of 69, lung cancer (never smokers only), or breast cancer.