GSK plc, a prominent British biopharmaceutical company, has announced a favorable Daubert ruling from the Florida State Court concerning its Zantac (ranitidine) litigation. Following this development, GSK will seek the dismissal of the upcoming Wilson case in Florida, arguing that the plaintiffs’ expert testimony is unreliable.
The plaintiffs in the Wilson case claimed a connection between ranitidine and prostate cancer. However, the Florida State Court's ruling sided with GSK and other defendants, excluding the plaintiffs' experts' general and specific causation testimony, which had alleged that ranitidine significantly increased the risk of prostate cancer in Wilson.
The ruling aligns with the broader scientific consensus, which indicates that there is no consistent or reliable evidence suggesting that ranitidine elevates the risk of any type of cancer. GSK has reiterated its commitment to vigorously defending itself against all claims in various jurisdictions.
GSK has faced numerous personal injury lawsuits in both federal and state courts, with allegations that Zantac caused cancer due to the presence of N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA). Since concerns about NDMA in ranitidine emerged in 2019, GSK, along with independent cancer researchers, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and other agencies, has conducted extensive reviews and investigations. These studies have consistently found no causal link between ranitidine and cancer.
Citing 16 epidemiological studies since 2019, GSK noted that the scientific consensus remains unchanged: there is no consistent or reliable evidence that ranitidine increases the risk of any cancer. The recent court decision echoes the December 2022 ruling by Judge Rosenberg in the federal multidistrict litigation (MDL), which dismissed all cases alleging bladder, esophageal, gastric, liver, or pancreatic cancer after rejecting the plaintiffs' expert evidence.
Both the MDL and Florida courts have concluded that the methodologies employed by the plaintiffs' experts do not meet the Daubert standard for scientific evidence and are thus unreliable.
