By As Law Online 
Key Points:
- Research suggests that glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, may be linked to non-Hodgkin lymphoma, though regulatory bodies like the EPA maintain it is safe when used as directed.
- Bayer, which acquired Monsanto in 2018, has settled approximately 130,000 roundup lawsuit claims for around $11 billion, but about 60,000 cases remain active as of February 2026.
- The U.S. Supreme Court agreed in January 2026 to review a key case that could determine if federal law preempts state-based failure-to-warn claims, potentially shielding Bayer from many lawsuits.
- Evidence leans toward ongoing litigation risks for Bayer, with recent jury verdicts favoring plaintiffs in several instances, highlighting controversy over product safety and labeling.
- It seems likely that affected individuals, particularly those with occupational exposure, should monitor developments, as outcomes could influence future regulatory reviews and compensation opportunities.
Overview of the Litigation: The roundup lawsuit centers on allegations that exposure to glyphosate in Roundup weedkiller products has caused serious health issues, including non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Initiated primarily in the mid-2010s, these cases involve product liability claims under state laws, focusing on failure to warn consumers about potential risks. Bayer maintains that federal approvals by the EPA preempt such claims, a position now under Supreme Court review. As of February 2026, multidistrict litigation (MDL) in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California consolidates 3,902 cases, with thousands more in state courts. Settlements have provided relief to many, but new filings continue as diagnoses emerge.
Health and Safety Context: The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), part of the World Health Organization, classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans” in 2015 based on limited human evidence and sufficient animal studies. In contrast, the EPA’s assessments, including a 2020 interim decision, conclude no human health risks when used properly, though this was partially vacated by courts for further review. This divergence fuels debates, with plaintiffs relying on epidemiological studies linking exposure to cancer, while defendants cite regulatory endorsements.
Current Implications: For those potentially affected, consulting medical records and exposure history is key, as cases often require proof of prolonged use. Bayer’s reformulation of residential products since 2023 aims to reduce litigation, but agricultural uses persist. The EPA faces a 2026 deadline for glyphosate reevaluation, which could shift standards. Readers are encouraged to stay updated via reliable sources like court dockets or regulatory announcements at EPA.gov.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult qualified legal professionals for advice specific to their situations.
Introduction
The roundup lawsuit encompasses a series of ongoing legal actions against Bayer AG (which acquired Monsanto in 2018) alleging that glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup weedkiller, causes cancer, particularly non-Hodgkin lymphoma. These cases, which began gaining traction around 2015, highlight tensions between consumer safety, agricultural practices, and regulatory oversight. As of February 2026, Bayer has resolved over 130,000 claims through settlements totaling approximately $11 billion, yet around 60,000 lawsuits remain active, underscoring persistent public health concerns.
This litigation matters now more than ever due to its implications for public health and industry accountability. Recent developments, including the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to review a pivotal case in January 2026, could reshape how such claims are handled, potentially limiting plaintiffs’ ability to seek redress in state courts. Primarily impacted are individuals with prolonged exposure to Roundup—such as farmers, landscapers, and gardeners—who may have developed related illnesses. The cases also affect broader stakeholders, including agricultural businesses reliant on glyphosate and regulators tasked with balancing innovation and safety.
Background & Legal Context
Glyphosate was introduced by Monsanto in the 1970s as a broad-spectrum herbicide, revolutionizing weed control in agriculture and residential settings. Marketed under the Roundup brand, it became one of the world’s most widely used pesticides, especially after the development of glyphosate-resistant genetically modified crops in the 1990s. Monsanto’s acquisition by Bayer in 2018 for $63 billion transferred liability for emerging health claims.
The roundup lawsuit originated from growing scientific scrutiny. In 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a specialized agency of the World Health Organization, classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans” (Group 2A). This determination was based on limited evidence from human epidemiological studies showing associations with non-Hodgkin lymphoma, sufficient evidence from animal experiments demonstrating carcinogenicity, and strong evidence of genotoxicity (DNA damage).
In contrast, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has consistently maintained that glyphosate is not likely to be carcinogenic when used according to label instructions. The EPA’s 2020 interim registration review decision affirmed no risks to human health, though this was partially vacated by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in 2022 for inadequate analysis, leading to a withdrawal of the decision. Prior rulings, such as landmark verdicts in California state courts (e.g., the 2018 Johnson case awarding $289 million, later reduced), set precedents for causation arguments, drawing on internal Monsanto documents suggesting efforts to influence scientific narratives.
Legislatively, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) governs pesticide labeling, requiring EPA approval. This framework underpins Bayer’s defense, arguing federal preemption over state laws. The litigation has evolved into multidistrict litigation (MDL) in the Northern District of California, consolidating federal cases for efficient pretrial proceedings under Judge Vince Chhabria.
Key Legal Issues Explained
At the core of the roundup lawsuit are product liability claims under state tort laws, including strict liability for design defects, negligence, and failure to warn. Plaintiffs must prove causation—that glyphosate exposure was a substantial factor in their cancer—often relying on expert testimony linking epidemiological data to individual cases. “Failure to warn” alleges that Monsanto/Bayer knew or should have known of risks but omitted adequate labels, violating duties under common law principles established in cases like Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A.
A critical issue is federal preemption: Bayer contends that EPA-approved labels (which do not include cancer warnings) preempt state requirements under FIFRA, as upheld in some appellate rulings like the Third Circuit’s 2024 Schaffner decision. This doctrine, rooted in the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, prevents states from imposing conflicting obligations. In plain English, if federal law says no warning is needed, states can’t demand one through lawsuits.
Other concepts include general and specific causation: General causation establishes that glyphosate can cause cancer (supported by IARC), while specific causation ties it to a plaintiff’s diagnosis, considering exposure levels and medical history. Punitive damages, awarded in verdicts like the $2.1 billion Georgia case in 2025, punish alleged misconduct, such as suppressing unfavorable studies. Appeals often reduce these under due process standards from Supreme Court precedents like BMW v. Gore (1996).
Latest Developments or Case Status
As of February 2026, the roundup lawsuit remains active with mixed outcomes. The federal MDL in California has 3,902 pending cases, down from 4,511 in January, reflecting remittances to originating courts and some resolutions. Bayer reports resolving 132,000 of 197,000 total claims by October 2025, with settlements strategically pursued to avoid unfavorable precedents.
Key recent events include the U.S. Supreme Court’s January 16, 2026, grant of certiorari in Monsanto Co. v. Durnell, focusing on whether FIFRA preempts state failure-to-warn claims. The case stems from a Missouri jury’s $1.25 million award to John Durnell for non-Hodgkin lymphoma, with arguments slated for spring or fall 2026. In January 2026, Judge Chhabria approved a confidential settlement in a wrongful death case.
Verdicts in 2025 favored plaintiffs in several trials: A Missouri appellate court affirmed a $611 million award (reduced from $1.56 billion), and Georgia’s $2.1 billion verdict was appealed but later settled undisclosed. Bayer won defenses in cases like Evard (Illinois, September 2025) and achieved a mistrial in Antonou (December 2024). State-level shielding laws in Georgia, Iowa, and North Dakota limit new claims.
The EPA’s glyphosate reevaluation is ongoing, with a 2026 deadline prompted by advocacy lawsuits, potentially incorporating new Endangered Species Act consultations.
| Key Timeline of Recent Developments |
|---|
| Date |
| January 2026 |
| December 2025 |
| September 2025 |
| June 2025 |
| May 2025 |
| March 2025 |
| October 2024 |
Who Is Affected & Potential Impact
Primarily affected are individuals with occupational or heavy residential exposure to Roundup, such as agricultural workers, landscapers, and groundskeepers, who may develop non-Hodgkin lymphoma or other cancers. Real-life examples include farmworkers facing medical bills and lost wages after diagnoses, or families pursuing wrongful death claims following loved ones’ passing. Consumers using Roundup for home gardening are also implicated, though cases often require evidence of prolonged, high-level contact.
Businesses in agriculture face potential supply chain disruptions if glyphosate faces restrictions, increasing costs for alternatives. Institutions like schools and municipalities using Roundup for maintenance could shift practices amid liability fears. Broader impacts include heightened scrutiny on pesticide regulations, potentially leading to stricter EPA tolerances and affecting food prices if weed control efficiency declines.
What This Means Going Forward
The roundup lawsuit’s legal significance lies in clarifying federal preemption’s scope, potentially barring thousands of state claims if the Supreme Court rules for Bayer, aligning with FIFRA’s uniform labeling. This could deter future product liability suits against pesticide makers, emphasizing regulatory compliance over state juries.
For the public, it underscores the need to monitor EPA’s 2026 glyphosate review, which may incorporate new data on ecological and health risks, possibly resulting in label changes or use restrictions. Industry-wise, Bayer’s reformulations signal adaptive strategies, while advocacy groups push for bans. Readers should watch Supreme Court arguments, MDL proceedings, and regulatory announcements for updates that could influence health policies and compensation.
Conclusion
The roundup lawsuit represents a critical intersection of consumer rights, scientific debate, and regulatory authority, with Bayer facing ongoing accountability for glyphosate’s alleged risks. While settlements have provided relief to many, the Supreme Court’s impending review and EPA’s reevaluation highlight unresolved questions about safety and liability. This matter remains relevant for public health, urging stakeholders to stay informed through trusted sources like the EPA and federal courts.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the current status of the roundup lawsuit?
As of February 2026, approximately 60,000 cases remain pending, with 3,902 in federal MDL. Bayer has settled over 130,000 for $11 billion, but trials and appeals continue.
Who can file a roundup lawsuit?
Individuals diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma or related cancers after significant Roundup exposure, supported by medical records and proof of use, may qualify. Statutes of limitations vary by state.
What are average settlement amounts in roundup lawsuits?
Settlements range from $5,000 to $250,000, averaging around $150,000, depending on injury severity and evidence strength.
Is glyphosate safe according to regulators?
The EPA states glyphosate poses no human health risks when used as directed and is not likely carcinogenic, though IARC classifies it as probably carcinogenic.
What could the Supreme Court’s decision mean?
A ruling favoring Bayer could dismiss many claims via preemption, limiting state lawsuits; otherwise, litigation may expand.
When is the EPA’s next glyphosate review?
The EPA faces a 2026 deadline for final registration review, including updated health and ecological assessments.
You May Also Like: The Innovasis Lawsuit: Settlement, Allegations, and Impact