FOLLOW US

Connecticut state court litigation can move ahead for two groups of plaintiffs alleging that Zantac causes cancer and suing GlaxoSmithKline LLC (GSK), Pfizer Inc., and Sanofi-Aventis US LLC. Connecticut Superior Court Judge W. Glen Pierson issued the ruling today, denying motions by drug makers to dismiss cases against them in Connecticut and finding that the companies could be sued under state law.

Zantac Cases Face Jurisdictional Battle

The suits are based on claims that the heartburn drug Zantac and its generic, ranitidine convert to a probable carcinogen, N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA). The plaintiffs say the companies should have issued safety warnings about the drug and its generic versions, accusing Zantac of causing cancer.

Judge Pierson issued a ruling that allowed GSK and Pfizer — both registered as foreign corporations in Connecticut — to be sued within the state for conduct associated with doing business inside the state. Connecticut law has for years held that by registering as businesses, outside firms agree to submit to our local jurisdiction, he said. The judge also referenced the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Mallory v Norfolk Southern Railway decision, which supported his determination that companies could be held accountable under Connecticut law .

Innovator liability and the tide— filled waters of jurisdiction.

While GSK and Pfizer are state-registered entities, Sanofi was in contrast jurisdiction-based. Although Sanofi is not registered to do business in Connecticut, Judge Pierson held that its ongoing conduct established jurisdiction because an entity need only purposefully avail itself of the privilege doing simple running accounting better fulfill commission salesforce. The judge found, too, that Connecticut courts had an interest in regulating companies with substantial business contacts within the state.

While the court has not finally ruled on the plaintiffs' claims — including novel "innovator liability" arguments, Judge Pierson's decision signaled those issues could still be taken up down the road. Innovator liability theory makes brand-name manufacturers liable in court for injuries allegedly caused by generic versions of their drugs. This abstract concept has been recognized in other states — California and Massachusetts, for example — but its validity as a legal defense is still up in the air here.

Zantac Cases Must Remain In State Court : Next Steps in the Case

All of the cases filed by two groups of plaintiffs in August 2023 and March 2023 against GSK, Pfizer and Sanofi respectively have been consolidated on Connecticut's complex litigation docket. The plaintiffs claim that the Ranitidine was broken down into NDMA because of changes in temperature and humidity during transportation, resulting in cancer diagnoses.

They are among thousands of lawsuits involving Zantac sweeping the nation. Snyder's decision came in the wake of a Florida federal judge dismissing similar claims in multidistrict litigation (MDL) there but smaller cases have popped up since then, including ones filed in state courts like Connecticut.

Zantac Cases Must Remain in State Court : Lawyers React to the Ruling

The decision is “impressive and scholarly,” said plaintiffs' attorney Brenden P. Leydon, He applauded the court for acknowledging that there were significant connections in Connecticut and not accepting defendants' arguments to dismiss cases on a narrow interpretation of case-linkage.

Lawyers and spokespeople for Pfizer (PFE.N), GSK (GSK.L) and Sanofi did not immediately respond to requests for comment.