FREE Case Evaluation: 1-800-375-6160
Victims are filing Roundup lawsuits because of the following reasons:
By filing lawsuits, plaintiffs are seeking compensation for medical expenses, lost wages, and emotional suffering. They also aim to hold Monsanto accountable for allegedly failing to ensure the safety of their product.
One of the primary health risks attributed to Roundup exposure is non-Hodgkin lymphoma, a cancer that targets white blood cells crucial for a well-functioning immune system. Legal claims against Roundup frequently center on individuals who have been diagnosed with this type of cancer.
Aside from non-Hodgkin lymphoma, several related cancers are also being cited in lawsuits against Roundup. These cancers range from less common forms to more specific subtypes of lymphomas, reflecting the broad scope of potential health impacts.
Below is a comprehensive list of these related cancers:
The diversity of cancers potentially linked to Roundup underscores the urgency and importance of ongoing litigation and research. While correlation does not imply causation, the mounting number of cases suggests a need for more comprehensive studies and possibly stricter regulations.
If you or someone close to you has worked in agriculture—as a farmer, landscaper, or agricultural laborer—and has frequently used Roundup weed killer, you could be in line for legal action.
Specifically, you might qualify for a lawsuit if you’ve been diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma or similar medical conditions. While many have already received their settlements, new payouts are anticipated to be made in 2023.
Here’s a simple checklist to see if you could be eligible for a Roundup lawsuit:
Some people have chosen to file their own lawsuits, seeking compensation specifically for their health conditions resulting from Roundup exposure. Meanwhile, others have joined class-action claims to get reimbursed for the cost of Roundup products they purchased.
With Monsanto/Bayer setting aside more than $10 billion to settle around 100,000 cases, covering approximately 80% of lawsuits, there’s still room for new claims. Roundup lawyers are continuing to accept new clients.
If you think you meet these criteria, you may have a valid case and should consider consulting a legal professional for the next steps.
These are the steps to file a Roundup lawsuit:
The payout for a Roundup weed killer lawsuit is between $5,000 and $250,000. The exact amount will depend on the injuries sustained by the claimant.
In late 2016, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) assembled a group of experts to assess the potential health risks associated with using glyphosate, a common herbicide.
The expert group was made up of 15 specialists from various fields, including:
Ongoing legal cases did not trigger this assessment. Instead, the EPA must reevaluate all pesticides' safety every 15 years.
The last time glyphosate had undergone such a review was in 1991. At that time, the agency concluded that the chemical was not a risk to the public.
Interestingly, the 2016 meeting commenced with Jack Housenger, the head of the EPA's Office of Pesticides Programs, presenting a comprehensive 227-page report arguing that glyphosate was unlikely to be cancer-causing.
He then asked the panel to evaluate the report. Many of the experts on the panel had reservations about the EPA's conclusions.
During the meeting, Eric Johnson, an epidemiologist from the University of Arkansas, voiced his apprehensions. He argued that if any research indicated a link between glyphosate and Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma, the EPA was quick to downplay the results, citing supposed study weaknesses.
Lianne Sheppard, a biostatistician from the University of Washington-Seattle, stated that there was a general agreement among panel members that the evidence presented did not align with the conclusions in the report, especially when evaluated against certain guidelines.
Some experts even questioned the impartiality and competence of the Office of Pesticides Programs.
Notably, nearly a third of this office's operating budget in 2016 came from the pesticide manufacturing industry. Much of the data they use for evaluation comes from studies performed by these same manufacturers.
Following the meeting, the EPA made the issue paper publicly available. Legally, they were obligated to include any objections or concerns raised by the panel members.
However, the EPA minimized the gravity of these concerns in the public document.
Monsanto/Bayer has enlisted Dr. Donna Farmer as their spokesperson in the ongoing legal battles surrounding Roundup. A veteran chemical researcher with over two decades of experience at Monsanto, Dr. Farmer strongly disputes the recent claims linking the herbicide to cancer risks. She criticizes the World Health Organization (WHO) for what she perceives as the selective use of data and differing interpretations of scientific studies compared to the original researchers. While she may be sincere in her beliefs, she is not supported by the majority opinion.
Dr. Farmer argues that glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, is designed to inhibit a specific enzyme found only in plants, not in humans or animals. She claims that her extensive research confirms the herbicide’s safety and finds no link to cancer.
However, juries involved in these cases have largely been unconvinced by Dr. Farmer's rationale, which is also endorsed by other experts during the trials. They have predominantly ruled against the arguments she has put forward.
Get a Free Legal Case Review!
Bayer secured a significant legal victory in the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled that federal pesticide labeling regulations preempt state laws. This decision arose from a Roundup lawsuit case in Pennsylvania where plaintiff David Schaffner claimed that Monsanto violated state law by failing to put a cancer warning on the label for Roundup. The decision in this particular Roundup lawsuit focuses on whether EPA-approved pesticide labels for Roundup, which exclude cancer warnings, take precedence over state requirements for such warnings.
The court underscored that once the EPA approves a label omitting specific health warnings, state laws that mandate those warnings are overridden by federal law. Chief Judge Michael A. Chagares explained that since the EPA, during Roundup’s registration process, approved labels without a cancer warning after thoroughly reviewing scientific evidence, any state law requiring such a warning imposes requirements that differ from those under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and is therefore preempted.
The decision conflicts with rulings from federal appeals courts in San Francisco and Atlanta in similar Roundup lawsuit cases.
That raises the prospect the U.S. Supreme Court could resolve the split if the Schaffners appealed, perhaps as soon as next year. The court is not required to hear an appeal, but often accepts cases when lower courts disagree on the law, which may be the case for this Roundup lawsuit
In the California MDL, Judge Vince Chhabria has requested that the parties file a joint case management statement addressing several issues, including how to "determine if plaintiffs' counsel are taking on more cases than they can effectively litigate."
The House Appropriations Committee recently voted on the Fiscal Year 2025 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriation Act, which includes FIFRA preemption language that would protect Bayer in these lawsuits. All Democrats on the committee voted against the bill, while all Republicans voted in favor.
Despite this committee vote, the bill is unlikely to pass the full House and is almost certain not to make it through the Senate in 2024.
The Roundup MDL managed by Judge Chhabria in California experienced a slight increase in active Roundup lawsuit cases from 4,285 to 4,305 last month.
The plaintiff in an upcoming Philadelphia Roundup cancer trial, set to start in July, has voluntarily dismissed the case. The trial judge had dismissed nine of the ten counts, ruling that the plaintiffs had missed the statute of limitations. With only one count remaining, the plaintiff chose to dismiss the claim.
Regarding other Roundup cancer claims, another Roundup trial in Philadelphia is set for next month.
After a slight decrease, the Roundup MDL saw a minor increase in May. In the past 30 days, 6 new cases were added, bringing the total number of cases to 4,285.
The Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas has lowered the January verdict in McKivison’s case from $2.25 billion to $400 million.
For the first several months of this year, the Roundup MDL was experiencing growth, with over 100 new cases added between January and March 2024. However, in the last month, the Roundup MDL saw a slight decline, shrinking by 3 cases. There are now 4,279 pending cases.
A new Roundup lawsuit was filed in federal court by a New York plaintiff who alleges that he was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) due to using Roundup. The plaintiff used Roundup to kill weeds along his driveway and property line from spring 2013 through summer 2023, following all safety and precautionary warnings. In July 2023, he was diagnosed with NHL. Although his case was filed in New York, it will be transferred to the MDL in California, which consolidates all Roundup lawsuits filed in federal court.
Legislation aimed at protecting Bayer from further lawsuits alleging that its weedkiller, Roundup, causes cancer is moving forward in the Missouri General Assembly. Sponsored by Representative Dane Diehl, R-Butler, House Bill 2763 passed the Missouri House on April 24 with a vote of 91-57 and had a public hearing in the Senate Agriculture, Food Production, and Outdoor Resources Committee on April 30. Although a planned Senate committee vote on HB 2763 was postponed and not yet rescheduled, the bill still has a chance of passing.
This development highlights the influence of lobbying dollars, with the Missouri legislature seemingly prioritizing the interests of a multinational corporation over its own citizens.
The Roundup MDL saw a resurgence of activity, with over 100 new Roundup cancer lawsuits added since the start of the year. Currently, the total number of pending cases stands at 4,281.
A Roundup wrongful death trial in Delaware resulted in a hung jury after three days of deliberation. This mistrial follows two monumental losses for Bayer in St. Louis and Philadelphia totaling nearly $4 billion in damages.
Another Roundup trial in Arkansas concluded in a defense verdict for Bayer.
The 11th US Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed Bayer's claim that federal guidelines for pesticide labeling should negate the need for state-mandated cancer warnings on Roundup products. This ruling weakens Bayer's defense strategy and might push the company towards settling a greater number of lawsuits.
Monsanto faces a major setback in the Roundup litigation with a $2.25 billion verdict in the McKivison trial, indicating a potential shift towards settling cases. Additionally, Monsanto's legal tactics, including challenging judges and introducing new experts, have been criticized and seen as irrational, while the scope of litigation expands with new trials and a nationwide class-action lawsuit in Canada.
Monsanto faced a new trial in California and suffered a significant legal defeat in Philadelphia, where a jury awarded over $3.4 million to a woman with NHL, linking her cancer to Roundup weed killer exposure. This marked Monsanto's fifth consecutive loss in such cases, with the jury finding the company's conduct negligent and reprehensible.
Monsanto is appealing a $175 million verdict in a Pennsylvania court over alleged failure to warn about Roundup's carcinogenic risks, arguing judicial bias and procedural errors. In a separate case, Monsanto settled a discrimination lawsuit by agreeing to eliminate immigration status considerations in future Roundup settlements.
The San Diego jury awarded $332 million in the Dennis Roundup cancer case, signaling a major shift in expectations for future litigation settlements. In a separate case, the Philadelphia jury awarded $175 million to plaintiffs in the Caranci case, with more details pending. These verdicts come amid increased legal and scientific examination of glyphosate.
The McCostlin lawsuit against Monsanto was dismissed after the plaintiff's expert testimony failed to sufficiently demonstrate that Roundup caused the plaintiff's non-Hodgkin lymphoma, marking Monsanto's ninth consecutive legal victory. The case was perceived as weak from the outset, suggesting a strategic pattern by Monsanto to contest less formidable lawsuits. However, expectations are shifting towards the upcoming Philadelphia case, where a substantial verdict or a significant confidential settlement is anticipated.
There are 4,222 active Roundup cancer lawsuits in federal court in California, a slight increase from the 4,212 Roundup cases in July. While Bayer, the owner of Monsanto, had proposed a $10.9 billion settlement for about 100,000 existing claims, a court decision has prevented them from settling all future Roundup lawsuit cases for an additional $2 billion.
New plaintiffs joined existing Roundup lawsuits, increasing the federal case count to 4,193, with the peak number previously reaching 4,630. Bayer also settled environmental deception claims related to Roundup. On June 15, 2023, Bayer agreed to a $6.9 million settlement with the New York Attorney General.
Two significant events occurred: Monsanto secured its seventh straight court victory in St. Louis, Missouri, against a plaintiff named Sharlean Gordon. Also, 4,176 cases remained pending in California’s federal multidistrict litigation (MDL).
Monsanto celebrated its fifth back-to-back court win in St. Louis, Missouri.
Judge Vince Chhabria of San Francisco ruled against Bayer’s offer of $2 billion meant to resolve future Roundup cancer claims.
Bayer proposed a hefty $10.9 billion settlement to close about 100,000 existing Roundup lawsuits.
A jury in California state awarded a staggering $2 billion to a plaintiff claiming harm from Roundup.
Another California jury awarded $80 million to a different plaintiff in a Roundup case.
A California state jury granted $289 million to a plaintiff alleging injuries from Roundup use.
At this time, many Roundup weed killer lawsuits have already been settled. However, new Roundup cases are still being filed, and lawyers are continuously accepting new clients who meet the eligibility criteria.
It can take up to 3 years to receive money from a Roundup lawsuit settlement. Although settlements have already been made in Roundup cancer lawsuits, it may take a few years to settle all of the remaining claims, especially since there are many ongoing Roundup lawsuits.
Finding an attorney experienced in Roundup lawsuits is easy with our assistance. All you need to do is fill out our contact form. One of our representatives will be in touch to match you with an attorney who specializes in Roundup lawsuits. We’re here to aid you on your journey toward justice. Don’t hesitate to reach out.
