COLUMBUS, Ohio — Attorney General Dave Yost of Ohio is spearheading efforts to lead a class-action lawsuit that targets the pharmaceutical giant GSK, previously known as GlaxoSmithKline, over allegations of hiding cancer risks associated with its heartburn medication Zantac. The litigation focuses on purported investor losses and claims of misleading information regarding the drug’s safety.
On Monday, Yost filed a motion proposing that the Ohio Public Employees Retirement System (OPERS) join forces with the Indiana Public Retirement System as co-lead plaintiffs in the lawsuit. This legal action follows reports that OPERS suffered a considerable financial hit, losing over $14 million because of the alleged deception.
The lawsuit contends that GSK was aware of the potential carcinogenic effects of Zantac but chose not to disclose them to the public or investors. Yost accused GSK of conducting a long-term cover-up that not only jeopardized patient health but also inflicted significant financial damage on investors, stating that the company had knowledge of a connection to cancer risks but kept this information under wraps for decades.
At its peak, Zantac was prescribed more than 15 million times a year following its introduction in the U.S. in 1983. The controversy surrounding Zantac escalated after an independent laboratory in 2019 exposed that the drug could decompose into NDMA, a compound linked to cancer. This revelation led to numerous lawsuits filed by cancer-afflicted patients against GSK. By 2020, Zantac had been completely pulled from the market.
In a recent settlement, GSK agreed to pay over $2 billion to resolve approximately 80,000 Zantac-related lawsuits primarily handled in state courts across the U.S., which the company said represented around 93% of the pending state court cases. Additionally, GSK settled a whistleblower lawsuit for $70 million, which had been initiated by a Connecticut lab.
GSK maintains that there is no reliable evidence to suggest that ranitidine, the active ingredient in Zantac, poses an increased cancer risk. The company argues that these settlements were strategic, aiming to mitigate the uncertainties of prolonged legal battles and were in its best long-term business interests.
Critically, these legal developments underline the challenging balance pharmaceutical companies must maintain between patient safety and shareholder interests. They also highlight the role of regulatory and legal frameworks in enforcing corporate transparency and accountability.
This article was automatically written by OpenAI. Facts, figures, individuals, or narratives presented may not be accurate. For corrections or removal requests, please email [email protected].