A federal judge recently threw out multiple claims by the plaintiffs in the Zantac cancer multi-district litigation (MDL) because the claims, which were filed under state laws, were barred by federal law.
MDL 2924, which now has more than 500 cases, was created in February 2020. These lawsuits focus on the belief that Zantac contains an undeclared carcinogen. Allegations made against the drug manufacturers include personal injury; negligence; violation of consumer protection laws; and design defects.
The recent ruling filed under state laws argued that the manufacturers of ranitidine (generic Zantac) created a flawed product and failed to notify consumers about it. The court ruled these claims invalid, effectively preventing manufacturers from addressing the defective design or the lack of consumer warning. Of course, the plaintiffs’ attorneys disagreed, arguing that the manufacturer could have changed the expiration date on the packaging without violating the law. Had the drug expired sooner, it would’ve been less harmful, as evidence shows that carcinogen levels in the drug increase over time.
The federal judge also accused the plaintiffs of making conflicting Zantac claims within the same case (which is not allowed based on court precedent). The plaintiffs argued that the drug was defective at the time of manufacture, which opposes the claim about expiration dates. If the drug was in fact harmful on the production date, then an earlier expiration date would not make it safe. These claims, both under state law, were dismissed.
While it is unclear how the case will proceed, the plaintiffs now have 30 days to file new, narrower claims. Some reports suggest that they will focus on possible legal labeling changes that should’ve been made by the manufacturers. Additionally, there are still pending claims under federal law that have not yet been addressed by the judge.