The Zantac lawsuit stems from claims that ranitidine (Zantac) degraded into NDMA, a probable carcinogen. In 2020, FDA ordered its removal due to safety risks. That triggered thousands of lawsuits nationwide. Courts consolidated federal claims in MDL 2924 under Judge Rosenberg. She excluded plaintiffs’ causation experts in December 2022, effectively ending most federal cancer claims.
State courts took over from there. In October 2024, GSK agreed to settle around 80,000 state cases for up to $2.2 billion—or 93% of its liability. Delaware courts briefly diverged on expert standards, then aligned with stricter federal criteria in 2025. Recent trials brought some defense wins. This article walks through what matters now—legal posture, science, settlements, eligibility, and next steps.
What triggered the litigation
It began when independent labs flagged NDMA contamination in ranitidine in 2019. FDA confirmed NDMA risk and, on April 1, 2020, asked manufacturers to remove all ranitidine from the market due to instability and potential carcinogenic breakdown. That announcement linked exposure to cancers, launching mass tort claims. Lawsuits soared across federal and state courts. Every claim now ties back to the drug’s propensity to form NDMA whenever stored or exposed to heat.
Federal MDL 2924: progress and pivotal rulings
The Judicial Panel formed MDL No. 2924 in February 2020 to consolidate federal cases. Judge Robin L. Rosenberg oversaw filings and motions. In December 2022, she excluded expert testimony on causation—plaintiffs lacked credible scientific support—then granted summary judgment on cancer claims. That decision dismantled most MDL litigation. Only non-cancer injuries remained. That outcome reshaped strategy and shifted the fight to state venues, where evidentiary standards sometimes vary.
State courts pick up where MDL left off
Before the federal decision, Delaware handled tens of thousands of cases. In May 2024, Delaware’s Superior Court allowed expert evidence, unlike the MDL’s denial. That position made Delaware initially appear more plaintiff friendly. However, in 2025, Delaware’s Supreme Court reversed that decision and tightened expert admissibility again, aligning with federal standards. The reversal pushed many cases toward dismissal or settlement. Other states like California and Illinois saw active trials and varied outcomes. Venue choice now matters deeply for viability and tactics.
Major settlement: GSK tackles most state cases
In October 2024, GSK announced it would resolve approximately 80,000 state-court cases—roughly 93% of its exposure—for up to $2.2 billion, without admitting liability. That included a separate $70 million settlement for a qui tam claim involving Valisure. GSK funded these deals from existing resources and said no impact would hit its R&D plans. Plaintiffs’ firms endorsed the agreement, and implementation was expected by mid-2025.
Recent trials: what verdicts reveal
Some cases still went to jury. In February 2025, a Chicago jury ruled in favor of Boehringer Ingelheim in two prostate-cancer claims. Plaintiffs had previously hung juries. That defense win underlined how scientific debates still drive outcomes. A separate 2024 Illinois case ended similarly. Jury verdicts now affect settlement dynamics and evidentiary planning for remaining litigants.
Regulatory science and NDMA dynamics
FDA’s recall focused exclusively on NDMA formation during storage or heat exposure—not inherent causation of ranitidine. Agencies emphasized the impurity risk, not direct carcinogenicity. Research followed—Taiwan’s large study linked prolonged ranitidine use to higher liver cancer risk (up to 22%) and modest increases in other cancers. These findings bolster plaintiffs’ arguments but also face rigorous scrutiny under expert admissibility standards.
Current status: where the litigation stands (as of 2025)
Federal MDL cancer claims remain closed. Delaware courts initially diverged, then aligned with federal guidance on expert reliability. GSK has settled most state cases, yet others persist against Pfizer, Sanofi, and Boehringer. Defense verdicts and expert challenges continue to shape the landscape. Some trials proceed, while others settle quietly. Plaintiffs still file claims in select venues. Overall, the litigation splintered into smaller battlegrounds.
Eligibility basics often discussed publicly
Typically, eligibility requires documented ranitidine use, a qualifying cancer diagnosis, and demonstration of timing between exposure and diagnosis. Proof like pharmacy receipts, medical records, and testing information strengthens claims. Statutes of limitations vary by state but may extend with discovery of risk. Lawyers recommend timely consultation, since settlement programs or deadline windows might close.
Key Zantac lawsuit data points
| Category | Value / Status |
|---|---|
| FDA removal request | April 1, 2020 |
| Federal MDL number | 2924 |
| MDL judge | Judge Robin L. Rosenberg |
| MDL causation ruling | December 2022 (experts excluded) |
| GSK state settlement amount | Up to $2.2 billion |
| Percent of GSK state cases covered | ~93% |
| Qui tam resolution | $70 million |
| Delaware expert ruling reversal | 2025 (aligned with MDL standards) |
| Recent defense verdict date | February 2025 (Boehringer Ingelheim, Chicago) |
| Key remaining venues | Delaware, California, Illinois, others |
What to watch next
- Appeals: Plaintiffs may appeal Rosenberg’s MDL ruling; defendants are appealing Delaware’s decisions.
- Trial schedules: Some state cases remain pending or may go to trial. Outcomes could shift settlement posture.
- Remaining defendants: Watch for settlements or trials involving Pfizer, Sanofi, or Boehringer inventories.
- Regulatory updates: Broader NDMA monitoring may influence litigation framing in future cases.
Quick FAQs
Did the Zantac lawsuit become a class action?
No. Each claim remained individual, coordinated federally then moved to state court.
Why was Zantac removed?
FDA requested its removal due to NDMA risk from degradation—not because the drug caused cancer.
What happened in the federal MDL?
Judge Rosenberg excluded plaintiffs’ expert causation testimony in December 2022 and dismissed most cancer claims.
Did GSK settle?
Yes. In October 2024, it agreed to pay up to $2.2 billion to resolve about 93% of its state-court cases.
Have any recent trials concluded?
Yes. A Chicago jury ruled for Boehringer in February 2025, finding no cancer link for prostate cancer claimants.
Conclusion
The Zantac lawsuit evolved rapidly after FDA’s 2020 recall. The federal MDL’s 2022 ruling shut most cancer claims, shifting action to state courts. Delaware briefly offered an easier path, but reversed direction in 2025. GSK’s major settlement in late 2024 resolved most of its liability, while other defendants still face cases. Scientific debates remain central, with trials continuing in selective venues. If you used Zantac and later had a cancer diagnosis, consult a lawyer soon about eligibility, preservation of records, and strategy. Although the landscape has largely settled, important developments and litigation still unfold.