Roundup Lawsuit Updates & News (2025)

A mistrial was declared in a Chicago Roundup trial after the defense referenced an irrelevant past criminal charge against the plaintiff during cross-examination. The judge labeled the move "serious misconduct," ruling it prejudicial and unrelated to the case, and issued a warning to the defense.

The plaintiffs criticized the defense for violating court rulings, calling the tactic a blatant attempt to influence the jury unfairly. The case, now derailed, will be retried at a later date.

In November, 18 additional cases were filed in the Roundup multidistrict litigation, bringing the total number of pending cases to 4,373.

The Fifth Circuit upheld summary judgment in favor of Monsanto in a lawsuit claiming Roundup caused a doctor’s death from skin cancer. The case faced a statute of limitations issue due to Louisiana’s strict one-year deadline. Additionally, the court excluded the family's expert witness, deeming his methods unreliable and lacking a direct link between Roundup exposure and the cancer. While Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma is the primary health concern tied to Roundup, other potential risks, including reproductive issues and organ damage, remain under discussion, though proving these in court is challenging.

A Philadelphia jury has awarded $78 million in the Melissen case, granting $3 million in compensatory damages and $75 million in punitive damages. This significant verdict marks a major victory for plaintiffs in the ongoing litigation.

In September, 12 new cases were added to the Roundup MDL, bringing the total to 4,349. With an increasing number of claims being filed in state courts, the future direction of the MDL remains uncertain.

The Third Circuit has declined to review its decision that federal law overrides Pennsylvania's stricter cancer warning requirements for chemicals, securing Monsanto’s win in a lawsuit claiming Roundup caused cancer. Plaintiff David Schaffner Jr.'s request for a full court review was denied. The court reaffirmed that federal law, under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), takes precedence over state chemical labeling laws. The ruling, which conflicts with decisions from the Ninth and Eleventh Circuits, may lead to a U.S. Supreme Court review.

Plaintiffs aim to recover from last week’s defeat as opening statements start today in the sixth Philadelphia NHL Roundup trial.

The plaintiff lost the recent Young trial in Philadelphia. The current trial record shows three wins for plaintiffs and two for Monsanto, with another trial scheduled soon.

The Roundup MDL currently has 4,337 pending cases in federal court, a number that has remained virtually unchanged for over three years.

The court issued an order on July 8, 2024, prompting parties to address the proposal to create Wave 9 for the ongoing MDL, marking the final phase.

Key Points:

Wave 9 Creation and Management:

• Wave 9 will handle remaining cases, including those moved from the inactive docket.
• New cases after October 4, 2024, will join sub-wave 9(e).
• Wave 8 currently contains around 377 cases in sub-waves.

Overburdened Plaintiffs’ Counsel:

1. The court raised concerns about whether plaintiffs' lawyers are managing more cases than they can handle.
2. Assessing this requires detailed knowledge of each firm's capacity, making a general inquiry impractical.

Settlement Program Termination:

1. Plaintiffs' counsel proposes ending the current settlement program and switching to a mediation program for better negotiation flexibility.
2. Monsanto supports continuing the current program.

Involvement in Daubert Motions:

1. Plaintiffs’ leadership is willing to participate more in MDL-wide Daubert motions.
2. There is a need for more leadership firms if this role expands due to the workload and lack of MDL fees.

General Causation Experts:

1. Dispute over calling general causation experts in the Beckfield case.
2. Monsanto argues for limited use based on specific Wave 4 disclosures, while plaintiffs insist on broader rights.

Hochstein Case Resolution:

The Hochstein case has been resolved and will be dismissed once the settlement is finalized.

An Oregon appellate court overturned a lower court’s decision in a lawsuit against Monsanto Company. The appellate court found that excluding Dr. Charles Benbrook's expert testimony on EPA regulations was erroneous and prejudicial, leading to a reversal and remand. The court also rejected Monsanto's claim that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) preempted the plaintiff’s state law claims, affirming that state law did not conflict with federal regulations.

The New Jersey Supreme Court has denied the request to designate litigation against Monsanto Co. and Bayer AG as multicounty litigation. The court decided that the current number of cases does not justify such a designation. Consequently, all Roundup cases will continue to be filed in their respective counties of venue.

The judge overseeing the Roundup MDL raised concerns about plaintiffs' firms taking on too many cases to settle cheaply. The judge questioned whether firms might be neglecting clients by settling for minimal amounts instead of litigating. This issue is common in mass torts, but the judge noted it is not a major problem in the Roundup litigation. Defense lawyers can address this by refusing to settle non-compensable claims.

A judge in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas has reduced the January verdict in McKivision’s case from $2.25 billion to $400 million. Despite the reduction, this remains a significant, life-changing amount and continues to impact the litigation.

A Missouri bill aimed at exempting Bayer from future lawsuits claiming its herbicide, Roundup, causes cancer is progressing in the General Assembly. House Bill 2763, introduced by Representative Dane Diehl, R-Butler, passed the Missouri House on April 24 with a vote of 91-57. It underwent a public hearing in the Senate on April 30 but a subsequent vote was postponed. Critics argue this represents the legislature prioritizing corporate interests over citizen welfare.

A New York man has initiated a lawsuit against Roundup, claiming the product caused his non-Hodgkin lymphoma. He started using Roundup in 2013 to eliminate weeds and continued until summer 2023, adhering to all usage instructions. Diagnosed in July 2023, his case will join the multidistrict litigation (MDL) in California, consolidating federal Roundup lawsuits.

After months of growth, the Roundup MDL experienced a slight decrease, losing 3 cases last month. This comes after over 100 new cases were added from January to March 2024. The total number of pending cases now stands at 4,279.

Jury selection is underway in St. Louis for a Roundup lawsuit filed by two women from Ohio and one from Oklahoma. The plaintiffs allege that their cancer was caused by exposure to Roundup pesticide. With the ongoing legal battle, another win for the plaintiffs could significantly impact their case against Monsanto.

After a period of stagnation, the Roundup MDL is experiencing a resurgence, with over 100 new cancer lawsuits added since the start of the year. The total number of pending cases has now reached 4,281.

After a series of major losses in recent Roundup cancer trials, Bayer scored a pair of victories last week. A Roundup wrongful death trial in Delaware resulted in a hung jury after 3 days of deliberation. We normally would not call a mistrial a win for the defendant. But after the punches Bayer has taken in the last few months, we can call it a win. These recent successes for Bayer follow a pair of monumental loses in St. Louis and Philadelphia totaling nearly $4 billion in damages.

On the same day, another Roundup trial in Arkansas concluded in a defense verdict for Bayer.

You can expect more verdicts in March.

• Legal Move: Monsanto requests the full Eleventh Circuit to revisit a decision that upheld a Georgia doctor's lawsuit over inadequate cancer risk warnings from Roundup use.
• Argument: The company contends that federal regulations on pesticide labeling should nullify state law claims, aiming to challenge the Ninth Circuit's contrary stance.
• Strategy: This attempt, likely to fail, seeks to provoke a legal divergence, possibly prompting a Supreme Court evaluation. Bayer faces a critical choice: settle the ongoing Roundup litigations or gamble on an uncertain legal outcome.

• New Trial Initiated: The Meyer v. Monsanto trial commences today in California, marking the latest legal challenge against Monsanto's Roundup herbicide.
• Awaiting Verdict: A verdict is anticipated shortly in the Cloud wrongful death lawsuit in Delaware, involving a man who used Roundup over two decades at a South Carolina conference center.

• Study Findings: Indiana University School of Medicine reported a significant increase in dicamba herbicide levels in pregnant women in Indiana, correlating with its heightened use in agriculture.
• Research Data: From 2020 to 2022, 70% of surveyed pregnant women had detectable dicamba levels, up from 28% between 2010 and 2012.
• Exposure Concerns: The concentration of dicamba in these women's bodies increased more than fourfold, indicating elevated exposure risks.

Two new Roundup trials have commenced in Pennsylvania and Arkansas, with ongoing trials in Delaware and an upcoming case in California, indicating a flurry of activity and verdicts expected in the coming months.

Monsanto has been actively lobbying across state legislatures for immunity from pesticide/herbicide-related lawsuits, particularly focusing on its phosphate mining operation in Soda Springs, Idaho. However, a bill introduced in Idaho for this purpose failed, reflecting the challenges Monsanto faces in seeking legislative relief.

The Cloud v. Monsanto trial, a wrongful death lawsuit alleging Roundup's link to non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, began in Delaware Superior Court. The case gains attention due to the decedent's occupation as a groundskeeper, potentially strengthening the plaintiffs' arguments against Monsanto.

The Roundup MDL saw an addition of 26 new cases over the last month, marking the largest monthly increase in the past six months.

Bayer AG is grappling with escalating pressure to revise its legal approach as U.S. jury verdicts against its Roundup weedkiller surpass $4 billion in just three months. The latest defeat, a $2.25 billion Pennsylvania jury award, has intensified concerns over Bayer's ability to manage over 50,000 pending U.S. claims alleging that Monsanto, a Bayer unit, concealed Roundup's cancer risks. With approximately $10 billion of its $16 billion reserve already spent on settlements, doubts loom about the sufficiency of Bayer's financial provisions for this litigation. The situation challenges Bayer to find a viable strategy amidst the potential for future high-cost verdicts, underscoring the urgent need for a new legal plan to address the ongoing Roundup lawsuits effectively.

In a series of 2023 verdicts, Bayer faced significant legal setbacks with a Pennsylvania jury awarding a staggering $2.25 billion in the McKivision case, marking one of the largest judgments against the company's Roundup weedkiller.

The jury in the McKvision trial awarded a staggering $2.25 billion verdict. Bayer now faces the challenge of finding additional billions to settle these lawsuits and avoid potential bankruptcy.

The focus is on the ongoing McKivisoin trial, with high hopes for a verdict. Bayer/Monsanto has settled approximately 80% of filed Roundup lawsuits, with some non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) victims already receiving settlement checks.

Recent trends in the Roundup cancer litigation reveal a shift from federal Multi-District Litigation (MDL) to state courts, impacting the case dynamics. Key updates include:

• Reduced MDL Activity: The Roundup MDL has seen a minimal increase in new cases, with only 3 added over the last month.
• Current Case Count: Approximately 4,200 cases are currently pending in the Roundup MDL.

The plaintiffs' recent winning streak in Roundup lawsuits came to an end last Friday with a defense verdict in a California case. While not every Roundup lawsuit results in a victory for plaintiffs, optimism remains high as trials are set to resume in January.

Updated Roundup Verdict Scorecard:

2023

Jones (California): Defense Verdict
Martel (Pennsylvania): $3,462,500
Anderson/Draeger/Gunther (Missouri): $1,561,100,100
Dennis (California): $332,000,000
Caranci (Pennsylvania): $175,000,000
Durnell (Missouri): $1,250,000
McCostlin (Missouri): Defense Verdict
Gordon (Missouri): Defense Verdict

2022

Ferro (Missouri): Defense Verdict
Alesi (Missouri): Defense Verdict
Johnson (Oregon): Defense Verdict
Shelton (Missouri): Defense Verdict

2021

Stephens (California): Defense Verdict
Clark (California): Defense Verdict

2019

Hardeman (MDL): $80,200,000
Pilliod (California): $2,055,000,000

2018

Johnson (California): $289,200,000

The scorecard reflects the mixed outcomes in these cases and the complexities of such litigation. As we anticipate adding more verdicts next year, efforts will be made to enhance the clarity and readability of this chart for better understanding and tracking of the ongoing legal battles.

In the federal court system, the Roundup class action Multi-District Litigation (MDL) continues with just over 4,000 pending cases. The majority of these cases have largely remained stationary within the MDL for the past several years, indicating a prolonged period of inactivity in the legal process.

In the ongoing Jones v. Monsanto trial in California, Monsanto engaged in a pre-trial legal strategy, attempting to have Judge Patrick Palacios recused from the non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) Roundup case. Monsanto's argument for disqualification was based on the assertion that Judge Palacios wasn’t the designated “all-purpose” judge, citing his suggestion to appoint a temporary or visiting judge for the trial as per San Benito County Superior Court's practice for lengthy trials.

This argument was, however, swiftly addressed by the appellate court, which corrected Monsanto's contention, paving the way for the trial to proceed. This move is seen as part of Monsanto's ongoing narrative of facing unfair treatment in legal proceedings.

Once again, Monsanto has been found responsible by a jury. In a recent Philadelphia case, the company was ordered to pay over $3.4 million to a woman with non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), with the jury attributing her cancer to Roundup exposure. This decision by the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas is Monsanto's fifth successive defeat in such cases.

In their verdict, the jury concluded that Monsanto's conduct was not only negligent but also reprehensible. They awarded $462,500 in compensatory damages and a significant $3 million in punitive damages. Monsanto's defense, which claimed the plaintiff's NHL was due to her smoking, was unequivocally rejected.

Updated Roundup Verdict Scorecard:

2023:

• Martel (Pennsylvania): $3,462,500
• Anderson/Draeger/Gunther (Missouri): $1,561,100,100
• Dennis (California): $332,000,000
• Caranci (Pennsylvania): $175,000,000
• Durnell (Missouri): $1,250,000
• McCostlin (Missouri): Defense Verdict
• Gordon (Missouri): Defense Verdict

2022:

• Ferro (Missouri): Defense Verdict
• Alesi (Missouri): Defense Verdict
• Johnson (Oregon): Defense Verdict
• Shelton (Missouri): Defense Verdict

2021:

• Stephens (California): Defense Verdict
• Clark (California): Defense Verdict

2019:

• Hardeman (MDL): $80,200,000
• Pilliod (California): $2,055,000,000

2018:

• Johnson (California): $289,200,000

In a remarkable verdict on Friday, a Missouri state court in Jefferson City ordered a massive $1.561 billion award in a Roundup case. Plaintiffs James Draeger, Valorie Gunther, and Dan Anderson were awarded a total of $61.1 million in actual damages, along with a staggering $500 million each in punitive damages. The jury sided with the plaintiffs, who claimed that prolonged use of Roundup in their lawns and gardens led to the development of their non-Hodgkin’s lymphomas.

The Roundup litigation has seen varied outcomes in recent years. In 2023, significant plaintiff victories were recorded in California ($332 million in the Dennis case) and Pennsylvania ($175 million in the Caranci case), alongside a $1.25 million verdict in Missouri (Durnell). However, defense verdicts prevailed in several other cases, including three in Missouri in 2023 and four in 2022.

Notably, earlier years witnessed large plaintiff awards, such as $80.2 million in the 2019 Hardeman MDL case, and a massive $2.055 billion in the 2019 Pilliod case in California. The trend of substantial plaintiff victories began with the 2018 Johnson case in California, resulting in a $289.2 million award. Despite these large awards for plaintiffs, the number of defense verdicts highlights the unpredictability and varied outcomes in Roundup trials.

Following Bayer AG's third-quarter financial report, a key message emerged from their call with journalists: the company is not prepared to make substantial settlement offers at this juncture. CFO Wolfgang Nickl conveyed to the media, "We're not looking to issue large settlements, especially at a time of limited free cash flow."

Adding to this stance, CEO Bill Anderson voiced his dissatisfaction with Bayer's 2023 financial performance, pointing out a critical "zero cash flow" situation. This financial predicament, coupled with a reluctance to offer reasonable compensation to victims, signals a concerning phase for Bayer. The company's current approach could potentially lead to more profound corporate challenges if not addressed with urgency and responsibility.

Monsanto is actively contesting the hefty $175 million verdict delivered in Philadelphia. The company argues that the court improperly influenced the jury's decision-making in a deadlock situation during a case that accused Monsanto of failing to warn consumers about the carcinogenic risks of its Roundup product. Monsanto's contention revolves around the court allegedly exerting pressure on the jury to reach a unanimous decision without informing the involved parties.

However, labeling this as coercion might be an overreach. Judges typically have considerable discretion in guiding juries towards continued deliberations in instances of deadlock. Monsanto’s challenge to the verdict hinges on this nuanced aspect of judicial conduct and jury management.

In a landmark case, a farmworker's discrimination lawsuit against Monsanto has culminated in a settlement. The lawsuit accused Monsanto of unjustly delaying a personal injury settlement, alleging discrimination based on the worker's non-U.S. citizenship status. This action was claimed to breach section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which safeguards against discrimination in contract matters.

Under the terms of the settlement, Monsanto has committed to a significant policy change: the company will no longer consider an individual's immigration status or citizenship when finalizing any future Roundup settlement agreements. This pledge marks a step towards equitable treatment in Monsanto's contractual practices.

In a significant legal triumph, Bayer has received a favorable ruling from the Ninth Circuit, which declared the California mandate for warning labels on glyphosate products unconstitutional. This mandate was found to infringe upon the First Amendment by compelling agricultural producers to assert a viewpoint not unanimously supported by the scientific community concerning the safety of glyphosate.

The court's decision underscores the controversy within the scientific world about the potential risks of glyphosate, emphasizing that producers should not be coerced into adopting a stance not universally acknowledged by scientific experts.

Amidst the court's unified stance, one judge voiced opposition. As the industry awaits the Supreme Court's perspective, speculation arises that Monsanto might preemptively label their products with warnings prior to any Supreme Court involvement.

According to a Law.com report, legal representatives for plaintiffs in the Roundup non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) cancer cases are intensifying calls for Monsanto to resolve about 40,000 pending lawsuits across the United States. The legal teams insist that there is a strong scientific agreement on the harmful effects of the herbicide, advocating for Monsanto to halt sales and proceed with compensating affected individuals.

With the European Union's recent decision against reauthorizing glyphosate and U.S. regulatory agencies reevaluating its carcinogenic risks, Monsanto's parent company, Bayer, might be more inclined to consider settlements. Additionally, the recent financial blow with $500 million in verdicts within a single week could significantly influence Bayer's approach to resolving these claims.

Yesterday, anticipation reached a peak as the jury in the Dennis case in San Diego went into deliberation. The legal community and plaintiffs closely followed the developments, hoping for a third consecutive win in this pivotal litigation series.

In a groundbreaking decision today, the jury in the Dennis case concluded their deliberations, awarding a monumental sum of $332 million. The breakdown of this sum reveals a profound statement by the jury: $325 million in punitive damages and $7 million in compensatory damages. This verdict not only marks a historic moment in the Dennis litigation but significantly reshapes the entire landscape of these cases. With this latest judgment, expectations for settlement amounts in related litigations are now scaling new heights, heralding a potentially transformative phase in these ongoing legal battles.

Philadelphia jury delivered a substantial verdict in the Caranci case, awarding $175 million. This amount breaks down to $25 million for compensation and a staggering $150 million in punitive damages. More details will follow as we gather more information.

This verdict marks a pivotal moment. As we've previously emphasized, this trial had the potential to be transformative – and it has indeed proven to be. The case revolved around an 82-year-old man diagnosed with NHL almost two decades ago, without any particularly unique circumstances.

In the ongoing Dennis trial taking place in San Diego, a pivotal contention raised by the plaintiffs' attorneys revolves around the EPA's 2022 decision to backtrack on its initial assertion that glyphosate, an ingredient in the Roundup herbicide, does not pose cancer risks to humans.

This change in stance stems from a June 2022 verdict by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. The court determined that the EPA failed to adequately assess the potential carcinogenic risks of glyphosate. Consequently, the FDA rescinded its initial position and committed to a more in-depth evaluation of glyphosate's safety. This development significantly challenges Monsanto's longstanding defense strategy of leaning on the EPA's endorsement. While Monsanto is anticipated to continue emphasizing the EPA's earlier support, the focus of the plaintiffs' attorneys on this shift in regulatory stance will undoubtedly intensify the debate in the San Diego courtroom.

A St. Louis jury recently mandated a $1.25 million award to a 67-year-old plaintiff, concluding that Monsanto failed to adequately disclose the potential hazards of its Roundup product, which the plaintiff blamed for his non-Hodgkin lymphoma. This trial, diverging from predecessors that narrowly scrutinized glyphosate's carcinogenicity, employed a refreshed legal approach. Plaintiff's attorneys argued that cancer links extend beyond glyphosate to multiple Roundup components. This groundbreaking verdict disrupts Monsanto's prior streak of nine straight defense wins in Roundup trials and reinvigorates the momentum for plaintiffs. Despite a series of past defeats, the optimism surrounding these cases persisted, now further buoyed by this outcome, potentially compelling Bayer to consider fairer compensation in upcoming settlements.

Despite a series of recent defense verdicts for Monsanto (now Bayer) in various state courts, including a triumph in St. Louis merely a fortnight ago, the tide might be turning as a new Roundup trial commences in Philadelphia's Court of Common Pleas. Plaintiffs are hopeful for a reversal in their fortunes in what will be the inaugural Roundup litigation in Philadelphia, noted for being among the nation's most plaintiff-friendly venues. The jury selection kicked off last week in the landmark case, Caranci v. Monsanto, et al., setting the stage for a potentially pivotal battle in Roundup-related proceedings.

The role of glyphosate in causing cancer is under judicial scrutiny in Australia's ongoing case against Monsanto, a legal frontier that, while distinct from the U.S. system, might indirectly influence Roundup litigations stateside. This class action encompasses claims from over 800 Australians, asserting that exposure to Roundup, a glyphosate-infused herbicide, from July 1976 to July 2022, culminated in their diagnoses of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.

Presiding in Melbourne's federal court, Justice Michael Lee oversees this bench trial, reflecting the structure of analogous international legal contests. The case's initial focus dwells on the general causation—specifically, whether glyphosate is a catalyst for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. This segment of the trial is slated for completion by October 31. Meanwhile, Monsanto maintains the safety of its glyphosate-based products, citing comprehensive testing and adherence to usage guidelines, while suggesting alternative causes behind the plaintiffs' health conditions.

a jury in San Francisco awarded a total of $550 million in punitive damages to a couple who claimed that their prolonged exposure to Roundup resulted in them both developing non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.

Bayer announced a $2 billion plan to resolve future Roundup lawsuits. This resolution plan aims to address the potential future claims from Roundup users who may develop non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.

• Bayer AG, which acquired Monsanto in 2018, announced that they had settled approximately 96,000 Roundup lawsuits in the United States for a total cost of about $11 billion.