Zantac / Ranitidine (NDMA Cancer) Lawsuit in New York

Federal MDL 2924 — S.D. Florida (Largely Dismissed): Zantac (ranitidine) litigation was centralized in MDL 2924 before Judge Robin L. Rosenberg in the Southern District of Florida (West Palm Beach). In December 2022, Judge Rosenberg excluded all of plaintiffs' general causation experts under Daubert, finding their methodologies unreliable for linking NDMA-contaminated ranitidine to the cancers at issue — including bladder, esophageal, stomach, colorectal, liver, pancreatic, breast, and lung cancers. Without expert testimony establishing general causation, the federal MDL cases were dismissed. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the Daubert exclusion rulings. Thousands of federal plaintiffs had their claims dismissed, though the dismissals were without prejudice in many instances, leaving state court as the remaining viable forum.

Delaware State Court — Active Coordinated Litigation: The Superior Court of Delaware in Wilmington hosts the most significant active Zantac state-court coordination, presided over by Judge Vivian L. Medinilla. Delaware's courts apply their own expert admissibility standards (Delaware Rule of Evidence 702), which differ from the federal Daubert framework applied in MDL 2924. Delaware plaintiffs have had greater success presenting causation experts, and bellwether trials are being scheduled. Defendants — Sanofi, Boehringer Ingelheim, GSK, Pfizer, and Chattem — remain actively litigating. Plaintiffs from any state may file in Delaware if defendants are incorporated or registered there, making this a critical national venue for Zantac cancer claims after the federal MDL dismissals.

Statute of Limitations — NY (3 years): New York imposes a 3-year statute of limitations for personal injury under CPLR § 214, running from discovery of the injury. New York's discovery rule is narrowly construed — courts look to when plaintiffs had knowledge of facts sufficient to suggest a causal connection to ranitidine/NDMA. The FDA's April 2020 nationwide recall of all ranitidine products is frequently cited as the constructive discovery date for plaintiffs who had not previously connected their diagnosis to Zantac use, though courts may look to earlier individualized facts. Plaintiffs with diagnosed cancers — particularly bladder, esophageal, stomach, colorectal, liver, pancreatic, breast, or lung — should consult counsel immediately to preserve claims.

Post-Daubert Case Landscape: Following the federal MDL Daubert rulings, the Zantac litigation has bifurcated sharply between federal and state forums. Federal courts have largely closed to new ranitidine-NDMA causation claims unless plaintiffs can satisfy the heightened expert scrutiny established in MDL 2924. State courts — including those in Delaware, California, and Illinois — operate under their own evidentiary rules and have allowed some causation expert testimony to proceed. Some states apply the Frye standard ("general acceptance") rather than Daubert, potentially offering a more favorable environment for plaintiffs' experts. The scientific debate centers on whether ranitidine degrades into NDMA in the human body at levels sufficient to cause cancer, a question that divides toxicologists and epidemiologists. Plaintiffs with strong individual exposure histories and clear cancer diagnoses continue to pursue claims in hospitable state venues.