The Roundup lawsuit is the mass litigation accusing Monsanto, now owned by Bayer AG, of selling a glyphosate-based weed killer that causes non-Hodgkin lymphoma without warning users. It began producing major verdicts in 2018, led to a roughly $10.9 billion mass settlement in 2020, and in 2026 sits at a crossroads: the U.S. Supreme Court is weighing whether federal pesticide law blocks failure-to-warn claims entirely, and a new $7.25 billion class-action settlement filed in Missouri is heading to a final approval hearing on July 9, 2026. Roughly 61,000 to 65,000 claims remain unresolved.
What Plaintiffs Claim
Plaintiffs allege that exposure to Roundup, whether through yard work, landscaping jobs, or farming, caused them to develop non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and that Monsanto knew or should have known about the risk but failed to warn users on the product’s label.
The scientific record is contested. In March 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, part of the World Health Organization, classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans” (Group 2A), citing limited human evidence specifically pointing to non-Hodgkin lymphoma, sufficient evidence in animals, and strong evidence of genotoxicity. The EPA has reached a different conclusion, stating in 2019 that there are “no risks to public health when glyphosate is used in accordance with its current label.”
In June 2022, the Ninth Circuit vacated the human-health portion of the EPA’s 2020 interim registration review, finding the agency’s reasoning internally inconsistent and noting that an EPA cancer paper from 2017 had simultaneously called glyphosate “not likely” carcinogenic while admitting it was “unable to reach a conclusion” about the non-Hodgkin lymphoma link. The EPA has since withdrawn its interim decision, with a final registration review anticipated in 2026. Glyphosate products remain on the market under existing labels.
The Supreme Court Case That Could End the Litigation
Bayer’s central legal argument is that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) bars state-court failure-to-warn claims because it prohibits states from imposing labeling requirements “in addition to or different from” EPA requirements. Since the EPA has never required a cancer warning on Roundup, Bayer argues state juries cannot punish the company for omitting one.
In August 2024, the Third Circuit agreed with Bayer in Schaffner v. Monsanto, splitting with the Ninth and Eleventh Circuits. On January 16, 2026, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Monsanto v. Durnell, a case originating from a $1.25 million Missouri verdict, limiting review to whether FIFRA preempts a label-based failure-to-warn claim when the EPA has not required the warning.
Oral arguments were held April 27, 2026. Paul Clement argued for Monsanto that the claim is “preempted twice over” through both express and impossibility preemption. Justice Gorsuch asked why states possess the greater power to ban a product entirely yet lack the lesser power to require a label change. Justice Sotomayor pressed on whether EPA registration conclusively proves label compliance, pointing to statutory language that registration is only prima facie evidence.
A decision is expected by early July 2026. If Bayer wins, failure-to-warn claims against Roundup would likely become unviable nationwide, potentially shielding the company from tens of thousands of pending suits.
The $7.25 Billion Class Settlement Pending in 2026
On February 17, 2026, Bayer announced a new class-action settlement filed in Missouri state court, designed to resolve both current claims and future ones over a period of up to 21 years. Missouri Judge Timothy Boyer granted preliminary approval on March 4, 2026. The final fairness hearing is scheduled for July 9, 2026. The opt-out deadline was set for June 4, 2026.
The deal uses a tiered payout structure based on exposure type (occupational versus residential), age at diagnosis, and whether the cancer is aggressive or indolent. Estimated individual awards range from $6,000 to $165,000, with lower “quick-pay” options for certain categories. Class counsel would receive $675 million in fees. Bayer will fund the settlement through declining capped annual payments over up to 21 years. The deal does not require Bayer to add cancer warnings to Roundup.
The proposal has drawn heavy opposition. A group of 14 law firms representing nearly 20,000 potential class members sought to intervene, calling the class definition and release of liability “breathtakingly broad.” The “futures” subclass covers Roundup users who may develop non-Hodgkin lymphoma later, including minors and people “not yet conceived” who witnessed anyone using the product. Objectors called this “unconstitutional and unprecedented.”
Federal Judge Vince Chhabria, who has overseen the federal multidistrict litigation for a decade, criticized the deal at an April 2026 hearing. He called the process by which it was filed in Missouri state court without public notice or a transcript “filthy,” and described the settlement as “mind-boggling” and “legally problematic,” with a “bizarre” opt-out procedure. He acknowledged the Missouri state court case was outside his jurisdiction.
On May 21, 2026, attorneys filed formal objections in Missouri state court arguing the deal violates the Constitution and due process. The next day, lawyers for 13 cancer patients filed a notice of removal to federal court. Monsanto filed a motion to remand the case back to state court, calling the removal “baseless and untimely.” By late May 2026, more than 100 class members and a dozen health care companies had filed objections.
The 2020 Settlement and What It Did Not Cover
On June 24, 2020, Bayer announced agreements totaling $10.1 billion to $10.9 billion to resolve the bulk of then-pending Roundup claims. Of that, $8.8 billion to $9.6 billion was earmarked for roughly 125,000 filed and unfiled current claims, with $1.25 billion reserved for a proposed future-claims class. The settlement covered about 75 percent of pending litigation at the time and contained no admission of liability.
Individual payouts varied widely based on diagnosis and exposure, with reported figures ranging from $5,000 to $250,000. Because the federal cases were handled as multidistrict litigation rather than a traditional class action, each case was assessed individually.
As of mid-2025, Bayer reported that of roughly 192,000 total claims filed over the life of the litigation, about 131,000 had been settled or deemed ineligible, with the company having paid approximately $10 billion in cumulative settlement and verdict payments.
Verdicts Juries Have Returned
The litigation’s early momentum came from three landmark California trials. In August 2018, school groundskeeper Dewayne Johnson won a $289 million verdict in San Francisco Superior Court; a California appellate court upheld the causation finding but reduced the total to $20.5 million, which Bayer paid in late 2020. In March 2019, Edwin Hardeman won an $80 million federal bellwether verdict, later reduced to roughly $25.3 million. In May 2019, Alva and Alberta Pilliod won a combined $2.055 billion in Alameda County, reduced to roughly $86.7 million. All three cases were excluded from the 2020 mass settlement.
Trials have continued since. Recent and recently affirmed results include:
- A $1.25 million St. Louis verdict in October 2023, affirmed by a Missouri appellate court in February 2025.
- A $175 million Philadelphia verdict for Ernest Caranci in October 2023, upheld by the Pennsylvania Superior Court in May 2025.
- A $332 million California verdict in November 2023.
- A $1.56 billion Missouri verdict for four plaintiffs in November 2023, reduced by the trial court and affirmed by a Missouri appellate court in May 2025 at $611 million (over $700 million with post-judgment interest).
- A $2.25 billion Philadelphia verdict in January 2024, reduced by the trial judge to $400 million.
- A nearly $2.1 billion Georgia verdict for John Barnes in March 2025, which Bayer has said it plans to appeal.
Bayer has also won defense verdicts, including September and November 2024 wins in Philadelphia.
Who Can Still File, and What Roundup Contains Now
The 2020 settlement, the pending class deal, and the Supreme Court case all shape whether a person diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma after Roundup exposure can still bring a claim. Anyone considering joining or opting out of the proposed $7.25 billion settlement needed to act by the June 4, 2026 opt-out deadline, and the final approval hearing is set for July 9, 2026. If the Supreme Court rules for Bayer in Monsanto v. Durnell, failure-to-warn claims may be foreclosed nationwide regardless of the class settlement’s fate.
One practical boundary matters for current users: residential Roundup sold in the United States no longer contains glyphosate. Bayer announced in 2021 that it would reformulate consumer products “exclusively to manage litigation risk,” and the new “Exclusive Formula” products began appearing on shelves in 2024, using triclopyr, fluazifop, and diquat instead. Agricultural and professional Roundup products still contain glyphosate.
State Laws Limiting Future Claims
Several states have passed or considered legislation shielding pesticide manufacturers from failure-to-warn suits. North Dakota became the first when Governor Kelly Armstrong signed House Bill 1318 on April 23, 2025, effective August 1, 2025; the law provides that an EPA-approved label is a sufficient warning. Georgia passed similar legislation, Senate Bill 144, awaiting the governor’s signature as of mid-2026 and set to take effect January 1, 2026. Similar bills were introduced in Iowa, Missouri, Florida, Oklahoma, and Tennessee, with varying progress. Missouri’s effort failed in 2025. Supporters argue manufacturers should not face conflicting state and federal labeling requirements; critics say the laws make it harder for people harmed by pesticides to recover.