caseintelcaseintel
← Back to Dashboard
Litigation Stage Tracker
Active Filing

Zantac / Ranitidine

ClosedFILING
MDL 2924Pharma
2,100+
Total Cases

Causation

Plaintiffs alleged ranitidine is inherently unstable and converts to N-Nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA), a probable human carcinogen, at body temperature and during storage. FDA requested withdrawal of all ranitidine products in April 2020. However, Judge Rosenberg in S.D. Fla. excluded all six plaintiffs' general causation experts under Daubert in December 2022, finding their methodologies unreliable.

Defendants

EntityRoleNote
GlaxoSmithKline (GSK)Original ManufacturerDeveloped and first marketed Zantac — primary defendant
SanofiManufacturer/MarketerMarketed OTC Zantac in the US
Boehringer IngelheimFormer MarketerHeld Zantac marketing rights during key period
Pfizer Inc.ManufacturerManufactured and marketed Zantac — acquired rights through Warner-Lambert

Litigation Timeline

Apr 2020
FDA requests market withdrawal of all ranitidine products
Dec 2022
Judge Rosenberg excludes all plaintiffs' general causation experts (Daubert)
2023
Mass dismissal of federal cases following Daubert ruling
2024-2026
Limited state court proceedings continue in Delaware, California

Intelligence Signals

Courtcourt
Uber Technologies, Inc. v. Express Digital Services, LLC
Courtcourt
Lott v. Health Gorilla, Inc.
Courtcourt
Schmidtka v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Courtcourt
Reynolds v. Unknown Names of Manufacturer or Responsible Individuals

Key Facts

Status
active

Geographic Exposure

·S.D. Fla. (MDL 2924, Judge Rosenberg — largely dismissed)
·Delaware Superior Court (state cases survive)
·California (state cases under different evidentiary standard)
·Limited state court activity in select jurisdictions

Eligibility Criteria

  • Used Zantac (ranitidine) regularly for extended period
  • Diagnosed with bladder, stomach, esophageal, liver, or pancreatic cancer
  • Used product before FDA withdrawal in April 2020
  • Note: Federal claims largely barred after Daubert ruling — state court claims may still be viable