Zantac Lawsuit Updates | November 2024

GSK has agreed to pay up to $2.2 billion to settle around 80,000 Zantac related lawsuits. The settlement, covering 93% of the pending claims, is expected to be finalized in 2025. This agreement only involves GSK, with Boehringer Ingelheim not part of the deal. Further updates will be shared as more details emerge.

A new Zantac trial focusing on bladder cancer has begun in Oakland, California. This case differs from previous trials and centers on the cancer most strongly linked to NDMA, a probable carcinogen found in Zantac. Boehringer Ingelheim's defense argues that the plaintiff’s cancer may have been caused by secondhand smoke and weight issues rather than Zantac. With plaintiffs seeking a key victory, this trial could be a critical turning point.

Defendants in the Zantac litigation have filed an appeal to the Delaware Supreme Court, arguing that a previous ruling could turn Delaware into a "safe haven" for mass tort claims. Their main point is that plaintiffs' experts failed to define a clear "threshold dose" of NDMA or ranitidine that would pose a cancer risk. They also claim the studies used by plaintiffs were not relevant to typical ranitidine use. The plaintiffs argue that requiring a precise threshold unfairly limits their ability to present their case, emphasizing Delaware's more flexible approach to expert testimony.

Defendants have settled most Zantac cases in California but appear ready to move forward with trial. The first trial begins next week with jury selection in Alameda County Superior Court, Oakland. The trial is scheduled to start on October 7, 2024, and its outcome could influence future Zantac lawsuits nationwide.

A mistrial was declared in Illinois in a case where the plaintiff claimed Zantac caused his prostate cancer. This follows another deadlock in a similar case in August. After 22 hours of jury deliberation, Cook County Judge Gerald Cleary declared the mistrial when a juror stated, "I must leave. This has not been resolved." The case will be retried. So far, plaintiffs are 0-2-2 in Zantac trials, with the defense's strategy of settling stronger cases and taking weaker ones to trial appearing to work. Prostate and colorectal cancer claims were excluded from the MDL due to weaker evidence linking them to Zantac.

Glaxo announced on Wednesday that it had confidentially settled two lawsuits in California state court alleging that its heartburn drug, Zantac, caused cancer. The settlements, involving claims of bladder cancer and colorectal illness, did not disclose financial terms. Glaxo appears to be focusing on settling higher-risk cases while preparing to defend against weaker claims.

The Delaware Supreme Court has agreed to hear an interlocutory appeal in the Zantac litigation, which involves nearly 75,000 plaintiffs claiming that NDMA in Zantac caused their cancers. The litigation has two tracks: general causation—whether ranitidine can cause cancer—and selecting representative cases for trials. Previously, the Superior Court allowed expert testimony on causation, rejecting defendants' motion to exclude NDMA studies and ruling that Delaware law doesn't require proving a specific dose for causation.

Though the Superior Court initially denied an immediate appellate review, the Delaware Supreme Court recognized the significance of the case, particularly in mass tort litigation and the use of the Daubert standard. While the litigation continues during the appeal, this development could give defendants more leverage in settlement talks, especially if claims are resolved before the court issues its ruling.

In a significant development in the Zantac litigation, a Connecticut state court judge denied motions to dismiss filed by Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, and Sanofi. The companies had challenged the court's jurisdiction, particularly over "innovator liability" claims, which hold brand-name drug manufacturers accountable for harm caused by generic versions.

The judge ruled that the court has jurisdiction, citing the defendants' substantial business activities in Connecticut, their registration to do business in the state, and the connection between their actions and the plaintiffs' claims. The court also rejected arguments about jurisdiction over specific dates of use, stating these should be addressed through other legal procedures, not dismissal.

This decision allows plaintiffs to move forward with their claims against the pharmaceutical companies in Connecticut state court.

A Florida state court has proven to be a challenging venue for Zantac lawsuits, as a judge recently dismissed the plaintiffs' expert witnesses in a prostate cancer case. This ruling complicates the plaintiffs' efforts in Florida, but with litigation ongoing in 49 other states, there are still numerous avenues for these cases to proceed.

In the Zantac mass tort litigation in Philadelphia, plaintiffs requested Judge Joshua Roberts to recuse himself due to potential conflicts of interest arising from his wife’s employment at Reed Smith, a firm representing GSK in other jurisdictions. Judge Roberts denied the motion, stating that his impartiality wouldn't be compromised by his wife's affiliation. He acknowledged the complexity of the situation and mentioned the possibility of certifying the order for immediate appeal, though plaintiffs are concerned about potential delays. Plaintiffs argued that his wife’s role, combined with Reed Smith’s pro-defendant blog posts, created an appearance of bias. Judge Roberts dismissed these concerns, asserting that recusal on this basis would be unreasonable and could affect any case involving Reed Smith. While he stands by his decision, he recognized differing opinions on the matter.

A recent Illinois court ruled against a plaintiff claiming Zantac caused colorectal cancer. This is the second loss for plaintiffs in these cases. While this is a setback, it's too early to determine the overall success of these lawsuits. The link between Zantac and colorectal cancer is less direct compared to other cancers, which may explain the initial challenges. Future trials will clarify the viability of these claims.

A settlement has been announced in the Kimbrow v. GlaxoSmithKline case, a prostate cancer lawsuit pending in Illinois.

There are currently two Zantac trials underway:

• Joiner v. GlaxoSmithKline: This colorectal cancer lawsuit began on Thursday. The plaintiff alleges that Zantac caused his colorectal cancer.
• Gross v. Boehringer Ingelheim: This trial started yesterday, with Glaxo having settled prior to the trial. The plaintiff claims that Zantac was a substantial contributing cause of his prostate cancer.

The Zantac trial that started yesterday involves a colorectal cancer lawsuit. In the same courtroom, another trial will soon begin, alleging that NDMA in Zantac caused prostate cancer. The plaintiff in the prostate cancer case settled with Glaxo last month, but Boehringer Ingelheim remains a defendant.

A new Zantac trial against GlaxoSmithKline and Boehringer Ingelheim started today in state court. The MDL focused on five types of cancer: bladder, liver, pancreatic, stomach, and esophageal. This trial, however, involves a colorectal cancer lawsuit. With the MDL no longer a primary focus, plaintiffs have more flexibility to bring lawsuits involving various cancer types. Some Zantac lawyers had the foresight to pursue these claims in state court from the start.

Plaintiffs in Philadelphia's Zantac mass tort are requesting the recusal of Judge Joshua Roberts of the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas due to potential conflicts of interest. They argue that Judge Roberts' wife works at Reed Smith, a firm representing GlaxoSmithKline in the national litigation, which could create an appearance of impropriety and unconscious bias. While there is no claim that Judge Roberts would intentionally favor Glaxo, plaintiffs fear that his personal connections might influence rulings. They suggest a judge without any appearance of conflict should oversee the case to ensure impartiality.

New Zantac lawsuits have been filed in Delaware state court. On Wednesday, plaintiffs suffering from colorectal, prostate, and breast cancer sued GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi, and Patheon. They allege the companies negligently marketed and distributed Zantac, despite knowing it could degrade into NDMA, a potent carcinogen. The suit references the FDA’s 2020 recall of Zantac due to high NDMA levels. Plaintiffs seek compensation for severe health consequences, accusing the companies of prioritizing profit over safety and downplaying the drug’s risks.

The Zantac MDL experienced a major reduction in active cases, decreasing from 14,401 in June to 2,422 in July 2024. While there is some optimism about appeals, the focus has shifted to state court litigation, especially in Delaware and California.

In a significant development, a Delaware judge ruled that GSK, Pfizer, and other pharmaceutical companies must face state court trials over claims that Zantac causes cancer. Superior Court Judge Vivian Medinilla determined that the evidence presented by consumers warrants a jury's assessment. This decision affects approximately 75,000 lawsuits filed in Delaware after federal case dismissals.

Zantac jury trials are scheduled in Chicago for June, July, September, and November 2024, and in Philadelphia starting in February 2025.

Plaintiff's attorneys requested $640 million in compensation in the Chicago colon cancer Zantac lawsuit. They argued the companies failed to warn about NDMA, a carcinogen found in Zantac, which the plaintiff used daily from 1996 to 2014. They also accused the companies of not conducting long-term studies or informing consumers that refrigerating the drug or avoiding it at mealtimes could reduce NDMA formation. A verdict is expected soon. This trial carries relatively low risk for the larger litigation, as the science linking Zantac to colon cancer is weaker. However, a plaintiff victory could strengthen future cases and prompt more lawsuits.

GSK is facing a whistleblower lawsuit that could cost billions, filed by the lab that discovered a probable carcinogen in Zantac. The suit alleges GSK concealed Zantac's cancer risks for decades, while government health programs covered the prescriptions.

An 89-year-old Illinois woman, who used over-the-counter Zantac for nearly 20 years, is the plaintiff in the Zantac trial that began last week. She was diagnosed with colon cancer in 2015.

Pfizer has settled over 10,000 Zantac lawsuits, surpassing Sanofi's recent settlement of 4,000 cases. Both companies aim to avoid prolonged litigation. A trial for a colorectal cancer case is underway in Illinois, but it may also settle before a verdict. In Delaware, nearly 75,000 lawsuits are consolidated, and if they proceed, more settlements are expected.

In the first U.S. jury trial among thousands of Zantac cases, Angela Valadez, 89, claims GSK Plc and Boehringer Ingelheim GmbH hid cancer risks to prioritize profits. Valadez, who used Zantac for 18 years, developed colorectal cancer and seeks $640 million in damages. Her lawyer alleges GSK knew of the risks since 1983 but concealed this information from regulators for 37 years. Pfizer has settled with Valadez, and Sanofi is not involved in her case. It is likely GSK will settle to avoid a verdict.

Sanofi SA has settled around 4,000 lawsuits alleging failure to warn about Zantac's potential cancer risk. This significant resolution applies only to cases outside Delaware. The terms remain undisclosed. The company aims to avoid trials as a Daubert ruling on 75,000 other cases is pending. Note: We continue to provide updates but are not accepting new Zantac claims.

Glaxo has settled another Zantac lawsuit in California, avoiding the April 2, 2014 trial in the Boyd/Steenvoord case. The company aims to avoid the disruptions of lengthy legal battles.

Glaxo has reached a confidential settlement with David Browne, resolving his Zantac lawsuit ahead of the February 20, 2024 trial.