OPINION:
Millions of Americans rely on Zantac to relieve heartburn and control the uncomfortable buildup of acid in the stomach. Unfortunately, trial lawyers are doing everything they can to get in the way of consumers’ continued access to the medication.
Lawsuits seeking to get Zantac back off the shelves are now in the hands of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which has yet to decide whether to uphold a 2022 ruling that excluded expert testimony linking the drug to cancer because of unreliable methodologies. The integrity of the legal system depends on U.S. courts’ ability to distinguish credible evidence from unfounded opinion. Yet, as litigation grows more complex, that task is becoming increasingly more difficult, calling into question how scientific claims are evaluated in today’s courtrooms.
Judges must stand firm against bogus lawsuits that peddle unscientific claims, clogging the courts and resulting in runaway red tape.
The introduction of flimsy evidence is rapidly becoming the status quo in mass litigation, rewarding trial lawyers at the expense of American companies that are either forced to settle or spend time and money on court battles.
The consequences even trickle down to consumers, who are made to wait for new products and end up paying more for products when they do arrive, as research and development stalls while companies adjust to hefty legal fees.
In the case of Zantac, the plaintiff’s attorneys have argued that the manufacturers failed to inform consumers that Zantac’s active ingredients may contain carcinogens. When brought before a federal court, the judge determined that multiple plaintiff witnesses’ findings were based on unreliable methodologies.
Judge Robin Rosenberg rightly concluded that “the Plaintiffs’ scientists within this litigation systemically utilized unreliable methodologies with a lack of documentation on how experiments were conducted, a lack of substantiation for analytical leaps, a lack of statistically significant data, and a lack of internally consistent, objective, science-based standards for the evenhanded evaluation of data.”
It is telling that these scientists’ methods closely resembled earlier, dubious testing that bizarrely assumed the human body is over 200 degrees Fahrenheit and contains a lethal concentration of salt.
When plaintiffs submit studies grounded in absurdly unrealistic assumptions, it’s hardly surprising that the findings don’t hold up.
The costs tied to this kind of litigation are staggering. In 2024, excessive tort costs totaled almost $600 billion, equivalent to 2.1% of total U.S. gross domestic product.
The mass-tort machine prioritizes revenue generation over the reliability of evidence and fair adjudication, forcing hardworking American taxpayers and consumers to foot the bill.
These cases often rely on manufactured evidence rather than credible and peer-reviewed research. In doing so, they blur the lines between proven scientific consensus and litigation-driven narratives, allowing claims that have not been validated to carry significant weight in the courtroom.
As a result, the judicial system becomes more susceptible to unverified claims, ultimately harming the court’s ability to access reliable evidence. To quote Judge Rosenberg, “the courtroom is not the appropriate forum for new scientific methodologies and theories to be tested.”
Because of current evidentiary standards, junk science in the courtroom thrives and often fails to filter out unreliable expert testimony. Under Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, judges are expected to act as gatekeepers, ensuring that expert evidence is derived from sound science.
In practice, however, many states have failed to enforce these 2023 amendment standards effectively.
In the ongoing Zantac litigation, the Delaware Supreme Court moved last year to exclude testimony from multiple “experts” after determining that their methods were unreliable.
This decision solidified the judge’s gatekeeper role while reaffirming Judge Rosenberg’s 2022 ruling dismissing the litigation for a significant lack of sound evidence.
Yet even with these breakthroughs and despite a lack of scientific evidence, similar claims have proceeded in other jurisdictions. This underscores the need for consistent, uniform standards across all states to prevent flawed or misleading testimony from distorting legal outcomes.
Policymakers must prioritize reforms that restore balance in the courts, secure compensation for those genuinely harmed, and protect Americans from misinformation that obscures product safety and choice.
• Ross Marchand is the executive director of the Taxpayers Protection Alliance.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.