GSK Wins as Florida Court Rejects Zantac-Cancer Testimony

GSK Wins as Florida Court Rejects Zantac-Cancer Testimony

Introduction

GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) is seeking the dismissal of a Zantac lawsuit in Florida, following a favorable ruling by the state court judge to exclude the plaintiff’s expert witness, who was set to testify that the recalled heartburn medication increased cancer risk for users.

This development was highlighted in a GSK press release, marking one of several recent legal victories for the pharmaceutical giant, which still faces tens of thousands of Zantac cancer lawsuits across various state courts in the U.S.

Zantac, known generically as ranitidine, was a popular over-the-counter medication used to treat heartburn and acid reflux. It was sold by multiple companies, including GSK, Pfizer, Sanofi, Boehringer Ingelheim, and other generic manufacturers, until all versions were removed from the market over four years ago. The recalls were mandated by the FDA after discovering that ranitidine, the active ingredient in Zantac, is chemically unstable and can produce high levels of N-Nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA), a potent carcinogen.

Due to the drug manufacturers' failure to warn consumers about this cancer risk, nearly 100,000 former Zantac users have filed lawsuits, claiming that the drug caused various cancers, including bladder, liver, pancreatic, and stomach cancer. Initially, the litigation was concentrated in federal courts, where cases from across the country were centralized for coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings.

However, before any federal case reached trial, the presiding judge issued a controversial ruling that excluded all expert witness testimony from the plaintiffs, which was crucial for establishing a link between Zantac and cancer. This ruling, based on a strict interpretation of federal rules on expert testimony admissibility, led to the dismissal of all federal Zantac cases in late 2022.

The federal ruling did not affect state court claims, where different standards for the admissibility of expert testimony apply. The recent Florida court decision echoes the earlier federal ruling, with the court finding that the plaintiffs' expert witness methodologies were unreliable and failed to meet the Daubert standard for scientific evidence.

GSK’s press release emphasized the parallels between the Florida ruling and the federal MDL court decision from December 2022, where expert evidence presented by the plaintiffs was similarly rejected, leading to the dismissal of cases involving bladder, esophageal, gastric, liver, and pancreatic cancers.

The Florida trial, which focused on claims that Zantac caused prostate cancer, was scheduled to go before a jury in late September but is now likely to be dismissed following the exclusion of expert testimony. However, this ruling does not impact the numerous claims pending in other state courts nationwide, where litigation continues.

GSK faces more than 70,000 lawsuits in Delaware alone, where a state court judge recently cleared Zantac cases to proceed to trial, with the first trials expected in late May 2024.

Additionally, GSK has faced several Zantac trials in Illinois state court, where the first two jury trials ended in defense verdicts, though the company is expected to confront a continuous stream of future trials. Plaintiffs’ expert testimony has been accepted in these trials, unlike in the federal MDL and Florida state cases.

Further trials are anticipated later this year in Texas state court, with at least one trial scheduled in Nevada for September 2026 and three cases set for trial in Pennsylvania state court next year. Amidst these ongoing legal battles, Pfizer and Sanofi have already reached settlements totaling hundreds of millions of dollars to resolve their involvement in the development and marketing of Zantac. However, GSK has not participated in these settlements and potentially faces the largest liability among the companies involved.

Despite consistently denying that scientific evidence links Zantac to cancer, GSK has quietly reached settlements in a few individual cases, resolving those claims just before the trials were set to commence. As the litigation continues, GSK remains under significant legal pressure as more trials approach in various state courts.