Zantac (Ranitidine) Lawsuits: Where MDL 2924 Stands

Zantac is a brand name for ranitidine, a medicine for heartburn and acid indigestion. On April 1, 2020 the Food and Drug Administration requested that manufacturers withdraw all prescription and over-the-counter ranitidine from the United States market, after its testing found that the impurity N-Nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA) increases in the product over time and at higher storage temperatures. The personal injury lawsuits that followed were mostly consolidated in one federal proceeding, MDL No. 2924 in the Southern District of Florida before Judge Robin L. Rosenberg, created on February 6, 2020. The court later granted judgment for the defendants on general causation as to five cancers and moved to final judgment in the cases filed before May 5, 2023; the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation still counted 847 actions pending on October 1, 2026. No court has found that ranitidine caused any individual’s cancer, and the documents reviewed here record no settlement.

What is established vs. what is alleged

Established by the documents reviewed here: the existence of MDL No. 2924 in the Southern District of Florida before Judge Rosenberg and the Panel’s transfer order of February 6, 2020; the Panel’s action counts of October 1, 2026; the FDA’s testing and its April 1, 2020 market withdrawal request; the court’s schedule for expert and summary judgment briefing; the court’s general causation ruling for the defendants; and the procedures it set for the cases outside that ruling.

Alleged, and not decided: that ranitidine caused or contributed to any individual plaintiff’s cancer; that the defendants knew or should have known of the risk and failed to warn; and the consumer protection and class claims. The transfer order records these as the plaintiffs’ allegations, and the defendant companies have denied liability.

Where the federal claims stand procedurally

The federal claims are centralized as MDL No. 2924, In re: Zantac (Ranitidine) Products Liability Litigation, in the Southern District of Florida before Judge Rosenberg. The Panel created the proceeding on February 6, 2020; its transfer order records fifteen actions in nine districts and 126 related actions notified in 21 districts. The Panel’s pending-dockets report for October 1, 2026 lists the MDL as active with 847 actions pending out of 15,018 filed. An MDL is a pretrial consolidation: it centralizes discovery and pretrial motions but does not merge claims into a class or decide whether any claim is valid. The pharmaceutical lawsuits section covers how drug claims are pleaded, and MDLs compared with class actions explains the difference.

The court’s merits rulings went first to general causation. Pretrial Order # 77, entered May 12, 2022, set the briefing and hearing schedule for the defendants’ motions to exclude the plaintiffs’ general causation experts and their summary judgment motion on whether ranitidine can cause one of the five designated cancers. Pretrial Order # 81, entered February 14, 2023, records that on December 6, 2022 the court entered an omnibus order granting the brand defendants’ Daubert motions on general causation as to all designated cancers, with their associated summary judgment motion. Pretrial Order # 83, entered May 30, 2023, records that on May 15, 2023 the court entered summary judgment for all personal injury defendants on general causation in cases filed before May 5, 2023, and that the ruling applied only to designated cancers.

The court then moved to close those cases. Its tentative ruling of July 21, 2023 states that, in light of the summary judgment, every defendant was entitled to entry of a Rule 58 final judgment, that the court had directed the defendants to list the qualifying cases, and that the tentative ruling allowed any party to object to it or to the inclusion of any case. An order of July 25, 2023 extended the deadline for unrepresented plaintiffs to object to August 11, 2023.

Two groups of cases fell outside that judgment. For claims alleging a cancer other than the five designated types, Pretrial Order # 81 set deadlines for a plaintiff to notify the court and serve a general causation expert report. For designated cancer cases filed on or after May 5, 2023, Pretrial Order # 83 requires the plaintiff to show cause why summary judgment should not be entered. Pretrial Order # 80 set the filing procedure for claims held in the MDL registry, noted that the tolling of those claimants’ limitation periods would expire on or about April 5, 2023, and directed the clerk to administratively close and stay newly created MDL cases.

An unpublished Eleventh Circuit per curiam opinion of November 7, 2022 dismissed two individual plaintiffs’ appeals for lack of appellate jurisdiction because no final district court decision had been entered on their complaints. It recounted the district court’s earlier rulings: the master personal injury complaint had been dismissed without prejudice as a shotgun pleading, misbranding claims against brand-name manufacturers were preempted, and states other than Massachusetts and California would not recognize a duty by brand-name manufacturers to consumers of generic ranitidine.

What the FDA found and did

The FDA’s record of its ranitidine investigation begins in September 2019, when the agency announced it had become aware of laboratory testing that found low levels of NDMA in ranitidine. It advised manufacturers to recall ranitidine when testing showed NDMA above the acceptable daily intake limit, which it states as 96 nanograms per day, or 0.32 parts per million for ranitidine. Recalls of specific ranitidine and nizatidine products followed from several manufacturers between September 2019 and April 2020.

In its April 1, 2020 news release, the FDA stated that new testing confirmed NDMA levels increase in ranitidine even under normal storage conditions, increase further in samples stored at higher temperatures, and are greater in older products. The agency requested that manufacturers withdraw all prescription and over-the-counter ranitidine immediately and stated that as a result ranitidine products would not be available for new or existing prescriptions or over-the-counter use in the United States. The FDA describes NDMA as a probable human carcinogen.

Key dates

• September 2019: the FDA announces that laboratory testing found low levels of NDMA in ranitidine and advises recalls above the acceptable daily intake limit.
• February 6, 2020: the Panel’s transfer order creates MDL No. 2924 in the Southern District of Florida and assigns it to Judge Rosenberg.
• April 1, 2020: the FDA requests that manufacturers withdraw all prescription and over-the-counter ranitidine from the market.
• May 12, 2022: Pretrial Order # 77 sets the schedule for the general causation expert motions and summary judgment.
• December 6, 2022: the court enters an omnibus order granting the brand defendants’ general causation expert motions and their summary judgment motion as to the designated cancers, as recorded in Pretrial Order # 81.
• February 14, 2023: Pretrial Order # 81 sets procedures for cases alleging cancers other than the five designated types.
• May 15, 2023: the court enters summary judgment for all personal injury defendants on general causation in cases filed before May 5, 2023, as recorded in Pretrial Order # 83.
• July 21, 2023: the court issues its tentative ruling entering Rule 58 final judgment in certain designated cancer cases.
• October 1, 2026: the Panel reports 847 actions pending in MDL No. 2924 out of 15,018 filed.

What this does not establish

A grant of summary judgment for the defendants on general causation is a ruling that the plaintiffs’ evidence did not raise a triable issue on that question. It is not a finding that ranitidine is safe, and it is not an admission of any kind by the defendant companies.

The FDA’s removal request is a regulatory action reflecting the agency’s assessment of NDMA levels in the product; it is not a court finding that ranitidine caused any person’s cancer. The Panel’s pending-case count is a docket count, and it does not indicate the strength of any claim or the likelihood of any outcome.

Nothing in the documents reviewed here announces or approves a settlement in MDL No. 2924, states the value of any claim, or predicts any outcome. This article addresses the federal multidistrict proceeding; claims filed in state courts are not part of the documents reviewed here.

Frequently asked questions

Is there a Zantac settlement?

No settlement is recorded in the documents reviewed here. The Panel’s October 1, 2026 report lists MDL No. 2924 as an active proceeding with 847 actions pending, and the court orders reviewed here deal with judgment and case management, not with an announced or approved settlement.

Were the Zantac lawsuits dismissed?

Partly. The court granted the defendants summary judgment on general causation as to the five designated cancers and moved to final judgment in the cases filed before May 5, 2023. Other cancers and later-filed designated cancer cases were addressed by separate orders, and the Panel still counts 847 actions pending as of October 1, 2026.

Which cancers did the court call designated cancers?

The court’s orders identify five: bladder, esophageal, gastric (stomach), liver and pancreatic cancer. Those are the types for which the plaintiffs’ leadership served general causation expert reports in the MDL.

Does the FDA say that ranitidine causes cancer?

Not in the documents reviewed here. The FDA describes NDMA, the impurity at issue, as a probable human carcinogen and requested removal of ranitidine because testing showed NDMA levels can increase over time and with heat. That is the agency’s assessment of the impurity in the product, not a finding that ranitidine caused any person’s cancer.

Sources

1. U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation: “In re: Zantac (Ranitidine) Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2924, Transfer Order (February 6, 2020)” (link, accessed 2026-10-14)
2. U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation: “MDL Statistics Report: Distribution of Pending MDL Dockets by District, Report Date 10/1/2026” (link, accessed 2026-10-14)
3. U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida: “20-MD-2924-Rosenberg - In Re: Zantac (Ranitidine) Products Liability Litigation (case page)” (link, accessed 2026-10-14)
4. U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida: “Pretrial Order # 77: Order Setting Daubert and Summary Judgment Briefing Schedule (May 12, 2022)” (link, accessed 2026-10-14)
5. U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida: “Pretrial Order # 80: Procedures for the Filing of All Future Claims in this MDL (January 23, 2023)” (link, accessed 2026-10-14)
6. U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida: “Pretrial Order # 81: Further Proceedings for Cases Alleging Non-Designated Cancers (February 14, 2023)” (link, accessed 2026-10-14)
7. U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida: “Pretrial Order # 83: Order to Show Cause in Later-Filed Designated Cancer Cases (May 30, 2023)” (link, accessed 2026-10-14)
8. U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida: “Tentative Ruling Entering Rule 58 Final Judgment in Certain Designated Cancer Cases and Vacating the Court’s Prior Entry of Certain Rule 54(B) Judgments (July 21, 2023)” (link, accessed 2026-10-14)
9. U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida: “Order on Pro Se Mailings and the Deadline for Pro Se Objections to the Court’s Tentative Order on Final Judgment (July 25, 2023)” (link, accessed 2026-10-14)
10. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit: “In re Zantac (Ranitidine) Products Liability Litigation, Nos. 21-10305 and 21-10306 (11th Cir. November 7, 2022) (unpublished per curiam)” (link, accessed 2026-10-14)
11. U.S. Food and Drug Administration: “FDA Requests Removal of All Ranitidine Products (Zantac) from the Market (April 1, 2020)” (link, accessed 2026-10-14)
12. U.S. Food and Drug Administration: “FDA Updates and Press Announcements on NDMA in Zantac (ranitidine)” (link, accessed 2026-10-14)

CollectiveClaim.us publishes general legal information. This article is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Court records and agency actions change; verify current status with the court or agency before relying on it.