Lawsuit Update Center
Roundup lawsuit have been going on for over eight years now. This is the story of the Roundup litigation, what plaintiffs can do in 2025, and an update on the latest spate of Roundup NHL verdicts nationwide.
Lawsuits regarding the Roundup weed killer allege that Monsanto’s herbicide led to the development of non-Hodgkin lymphoma or similar cancers in individuals. Plaintiffs claim that Monsanto and its parent company, Bayer, failed to disclose the potential cancer risks associated with the product to the public. Moreover, these legal actions assert that the company deliberately misled the public about Roundup’s safety.
Referred to in litigation as the “Monsanto Papers,” internal communications from Monsanto revealed potential concealment of Roundup’s cancer connection over an extended period. These documents purportedly displayed evidence of the company’s amicable relationships with regulators and tactics employed to suppress scientific evidence linking glyphosate to cancer.
The hope is that these lawsuits will settle in 2025. Lawyers are mostly pretty tight lipped about settlements outside of a global structure. But there are lots of rumors about specfic law firm setting there inventory of Roundup lawsuits—at average settlement amounts that, if true, will make a lot of people unhappy.
Roundup Lawsuit Updates
JUNE 2026 UPDATE
The Roundup litigation is sitting at a major crossroads. Bayer has already resolved a huge number of claims, with roughly 100,000 Roundup cases reportedly settled for about $11 billion, but the litigation is far from over. Current estimates still put tens of thousands of claims in the system, with more than 3,900 cases pending in the federal MDL and many more active in state courts. The core allegation remains that victims say exposure to glyphosate-based Roundup caused non-Hodgkin lymphoma and that Monsanto failed to warn users about that cancer risk.
One big issue pending right now is the U.S. Supreme Court case, Monsanto Co. v. Durnell. The Court heard argument on April 27, 2026, and is expected to decide whether federal pesticide law, FIFRA, preempts state-law failure-to-warn claims when EPA-approved labeling does not include a cancer warning. Monsanto is trying to use federal preemption to knock out a major part of the Roundup litigation. Plaintiffs see the issue very differently, of course. If EPA approval automatically bars state warning claims, then injured consumers lose one of the most important tools they have to hold chemical companies accountable when science evolves, or regulators fail to act quickly enough.
At the same time, Bayer is trying to move forward with a massive settlement. The proposed deal would pay up to $7.25 billion over 21 years to resolve current and future Roundup non-Hodgkin lymphoma claims. But this settlement is still not final. On June 17, 2026, a Missouri federal judge sent the settlement case back to Missouri state court after rejecting an effort by settlement objectors to remove the case to federal court and potentially get it folded into the California MDL. That ruling helps Bayer and the settlement proponents keep the approval process moving in Missouri, but the objectors have indicated they plan to appeal, so the fight over the settlement structure is not over.
The practical problem for Roundup plaintiffs is uncertainty. If the Supreme Court sides with Monsanto on preemption, it will sharply weaken future failure-to-warn claims and give Bayer enormous leverage. It is not that would could not win the cases without a failure to warn claim, but it makes it a lot harder.
Conversely, if the Court rejects Monsanto’s preemption argument, the remaining cases become much more dangerous for Bayer because plaintiffs can continue pushing state-law warning claims in front of juries. And many people who entered the settlement will have buyer’s remorse. That is why the Durnell decision matters more than any ordinary appellate ruling. It could determine whether Roundup remains a high-value mass tort or becomes a litigation that Bayer can largely contain through preemption and a controlled settlement program.
So we wait on the two pressure points: the Supreme Court preemption and approval of the proposed $7.25 billion settlement. Plaintiffs with strong exposure histories and non-Hodgkin lymphoma diagnoses still have viable claims, but the path forward may look very different depending on what happens next. For victims, the frustrating part is that Bayer has already paid billions, juries have already found Monsanto liable in major cases, and yet the company is still fighting to narrow or end the remaining litigation instead of fully resolving it.
About Roundup
Roundup stands out as the most widely used herbicide globally for weed control, used in lawns, gardens, parks, and playgrounds. With Monsanto as its manufacturer, this weed and grass killer generates an annual revenue surpassing $6 billion, with over 250 million pounds sprayed yearly.
The herbicide’s primary concern revolves around glyphosate, its vital component. Numerous scientists suggest that glyphosate may heighten the risk of developing specific cancer types like non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL) and hairy cell leukemia. The World Health Organization (WHO) categorized glyphosate as a “probable human carcinogen.”
Initially, the scientific understanding was murky. Monsanto’s legal team emphasized scientists’ uncertainty regarding the long-term effects of Roundup exposure. However, in reality, a considerable portion of established scientific beliefs was influenced by ghostwritten material commissioned by Monsanto.
Many Roundup lawyers initially anticipated the lawsuits to be a toss-up between Monsanto/Bayer and the victims. However, this assumption proved drastically wrong. Jurors in three trial cases awarded substantial sums, indicating their belief that pesticides contribute to cancer and denouncing Monsanto’s inaction. The punitive damages awarded signify not only a ruling for the plaintiffs but also a strong sentiment against the availability of the weed killer in the market.
Research Linking Roundup to Cancer
In September 2003, a study on 3,400 farmworkers in the Midwest raised concerns about the safety of glyphosate. An article published in the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine pointed to a potential link between glyphosate exposure and higher rates of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma—a finding from 19 years ago.
A research article in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health conducted systematic reviews over 30 years of research on the connection between NHL and agricultural pesticide exposure. This extensive analysis identified a significant surge in non-Hodgkin lymphoma cases over the past three decades.
Moreover, the research highlights farmers’ low overall mortality rates but elevated occurrences of certain cancers, possibly attributed to agrochemical exposure. Crucially, it confirms the association between glyphosate exposure and a common subtype of NHL known as B-cell lymphoma.
In 2015, a report released by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a branch of the WHO, categorized glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic,” citing evidence of cancer development in animal tests and DNA damage in human cells.
How did Bayer respond to the IARC’s conclusion about Roundup’s cancer-causing potential? Monsanto, under Bayer, allegedly devised strategies to influence regulators and generate opposition against the IARC’s decision. The company purportedly engaged EPA employees to ensure that glyphosate wasn’t carcinogenic before agency reviews. Additionally, they leveraged connections to pressure “key Democrats on the Hill” to influence the EPA and delay other regulatory agency evaluations of glyphosate. Their objective seemed to challenge the relevance of IARC’s findings, safeguard global sales, and support their legal defense against litigation. This conduct potentially elucidates why juries disregarded the EPA’s regulatory inaction while awarding substantial compensation to victims.
Roundup Lawsuit Verdicts and Settlements
In 2018 and 2019, three pivotal Roundup test cases went to trial in California, spanning both federal and state courts. These initial trials yielded significant verdicts for the plaintiffs, compelling Monsanto/Bayer to enter settlement negotiations and pony up and estimated $11 billion to settle the first round lawsuits. Here are summaries of these landmark verdicts:
- Johnson v Monsanto (2018) $289.2 million verdict: A 46-year-old male groundskeeper for a San Francisco school district, who regularly used Roundup on school grounds, was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL). After reaching out to Monsanto about his concerns regarding Roundup’s link to his cancer and receiving no response, an 8-week trial in San Francisco County concluded with the jury holding Monsanto liable, awarding $289 million in damages, including $250 million in punitive damages. The judge later reduced the punitive damages, capping the total award at $78.5 million.
- Hardeman v Monsanto (2019) $80.2 million verdict: This was the first case from the Roundup MDL to proceed in federal court. A 70-year-old Sonoma County, California, resident used Roundup products on his 56-acre property starting in the 1980s. Diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma three years later, the jury found the weed killer defective and awarded $80 million, which included $75 million in punitive damages.
- Pilliod v Monsanto (2019) $2.055 billion verdict: A husband and wife from Livermore, California, in their 70s, who regularly used Roundup at home and on other properties, were diagnosed with large B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma and central nervous system lymphoma progressing to NHL, respectively. The trial in Alameda County concluded with the jury awarding a staggering $2,055,206,173, including $2 billion in punitive damages.
Following these verdicts, Bayer allocated $16 billion for Roundup settlements and began negotiating large block settlements with plaintiff firms, resolving approximately 80% of the 100,000 pending cases. After this initial wave of settlements, however, Bayer changed its legal strategy and resumed taking cases to trial. The first round of cases that went to trial were cases that Bayer’s defense team cherry-picked because they were weak cases and this prompted a series of defense verdicts. This essentially pushed down the settlement value of the Roundup cases. After that initial series of defense wins, however, Bayer started running out of easy cases to take to trial. 2023 and 2024 brought a handful of major verdicts that have helped push the tide back in the plaintiffs’ favor. These verdicts include:
- Walker v Monsanto (2025) $2.1 billion verdict: A Georgia jury awarded $2.1 billion to a man who developed non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma after long-term Roundup use on his residential and farm properties. The verdict included $65 million in compensatory damages and $2 billion in punitive damages. Jurors found that Monsanto acted with conscious disregard for safety, emphasizing internal documents that showed the company downplayed cancer risks while aggressively marketing the product.
- Barnes v. Monsanto (2025) $2.065 billion verdict: In March 2025, a Georgia jury awarded $2.065 billion to John Barnes, who developed non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma after two decades of Roundup use at home and work. The award included $65 million in compensatory damages and $2 billion in punitive damages. Jurors found that Monsanto knowingly concealed the cancer risks of glyphosate and failed to warn consumers.
- Durnell v. Monsanto (2025) $1.25 million verdict: In June 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court signaled interest in Bayer AG’s bid to stop thousands of lawsuits blaming its top-selling Roundup weedkiller for causing cancer. The Court requested the Justice Department’s input on Bayer’s appeal to restrict these lawsuits.
- Langford v Monsanto (2024) $611 million verdict: In Missouri, three plaintiffs were awarded a combined $611 million after developing non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma from extended Roundup exposure. The verdict included over $500 million in punitive damages. The jury concluded that Monsanto knew of the cancer risks but failed to warn consumers. The Missouri Court of Appeals upheld the verdict in June 2025.
- Caranci v Monsanto (2023) $175 million verdict: A Philadelphia jury awarded $175 million to a backyard gardener who developed non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma after years of Roundup use. The award included $150 million in punitive damages. The plaintiff argued that Monsanto’s internal records showed knowledge of cancer risks but no corresponding warnings. The defense is currently appealing the verdict, citing jury coercion and evidentiary issues.
- Dennis v Monsanto (2023) $165 million verdict: Another Philadelphia jury awarded $165 million to a retired landscaper with a long history of Roundup use who developed NHL. The award included $140 million in punitive damages. The verdict was upheld by the Pennsylvania Superior Court in May 2025, reinforcing the strength of state-level Roundup claims in Pennsylvania.
Bayer’s Legal Strategy Adjustments
After changing its approach post-2021, Bayer opted to take selected weaker cases to trial, aiming to set a precedent that could influence future litigation. This strategy led to a series of defense victories in state courts across the country, suggesting a potential shift in the legal landscape. For example, Bayer secured a significant victory in a Missouri state court in early 2022, where a jury ruled that Roundup did not significantly contribute to the plaintiff’s cancer. This verdict echoed in several other similar cases throughout that year.
However, the effectiveness of this approach began to falter by mid-2023. As Bayer exhausted the pool of weaker cases, the company faced stronger, more compelling claims backed by robust evidence. This shift led to a series of substantial verdicts for the plaintiffs that echoed the earlier, groundbreaking verdicts from 2018 and 2019.
A particularly notable verdict occurred in California, where a jury awarded $150 million to a landscape worker who developed non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma after years of using Roundup. This verdict included $100 million in punitive damages, signaling strong jury disapproval of Monsanto’s (now owned by Bayer) lack of transparency and disregard for consumer safety.
Additionally, the $2 billion verdict in the Pilliod v. Monsanto case continued to make headlines into 2025 as a benchmark for the potential financial risks Bayer faces in continuing litigation. In this case, a California jury awarded a couple who used Roundup for over three decades, one of the largest personal injury verdicts in U.S. history, emphasizing the serious health risks associated with the product and Monsanto’s intentional misleading of the public about those risks.
Another significant case unfolded in Florida late in 2023, where a retired schoolteacher was awarded $90 million after her long-term exposure to Roundup was conclusively linked to her development of a rare form of non-Hodgkin lymphoma. The jury in this case pointedly criticized Monsanto’s failure to warn consumers as a crucial factor in their decision.
These recent verdicts, particularly the continued publicity and discussion around the $2 billion Pilliod verdict, have significantly impacted Bayer’s litigation strategy and they have reportedly settled some claims. But there are a lot more lawsuits out there and a lot of trials on the way in 2025.
Roundup Verdicts and Trial Outcomes Overview
| Year | Case / Plaintiff | Venue | Jury / Trial Result | Current Status / Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | Barnes | Georgia | $2.065 billion plaintiff verdict | Included $65 million compensatory and $2 billion punitive damages. Bayer announced it would appeal. This is one of the largest single-plaintiff Roundup verdicts. |
| 2024 | Melissen | Pennsylvania | $78 million plaintiff verdict | Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas verdict. Bayer stated it would appeal. |
| 2024 | Womack | Pennsylvania | Defense verdict | Philadelphia jury found for Monsanto. |
| 2024 | Young | Pennsylvania | Defense verdict | Philadelphia jury found for Monsanto. |
| 2024 | McKivison | Pennsylvania | $2.25 billion plaintiff verdict | The verdict included $250 million compensatory and $2 billion punitive damages. The trial court later reduced the award to $400 million. Bayer stated it would continue to appeal. |
| 2024 | Kline | Pennsylvania | Defense verdict | Philadelphia jury found for Monsanto. |
| 2024 | Cody | California | Defense verdict | Jury found for Monsanto. |
| 2024 | Cloud | California | Mistrial | No final plaintiff or defense verdict. |
| 2023 | Jones | California | Defense verdict | Bayer later reported the verdict remained intact on appeal. |
| 2023 | Martel | Pennsylvania | $3.5 million plaintiff verdict | Philadelphia jury awarded $500,000 compensatory and $3 million punitive damages. Bayer stated it would appeal. |
| 2023 | Anderson / Draeger / Gunther | Missouri | $1.56 billion plaintiff verdict | The trial court reduced the judgment to about $611.1 million. The Missouri Court of Appeals upheld the reduced judgment in 2025. |
| 2023 | Dennis | California | $332 million plaintiff verdict | San Diego jury awarded $7 million compensatory and $325 million punitive damages. The trial court later reduced the award to $28 million. California appellate court later upheld the reduced award. |
| 2023 | Caranci | Pennsylvania | $175 million plaintiff verdict | Philadelphia jury awarded $25 million compensatory and $150 million punitive damages. The verdict was upheld by the Superior Court of Pennsylvania in 2025. |
| 2023 | Durnell | Missouri | $1.25 million plaintiff verdict | Jury found for plaintiff on failure to warn but for Monsanto on other claims. This case became the vehicle for Monsanto’s U.S. Supreme Court preemption challenge. |
| 2023 | McCostlin | Missouri | Directed defense verdict | Judge ruled for Monsanto before the case went to the jury. |
| 2023 | Evard | Illinois | Defense verdict | Jury found Roundup was not responsible for the claimed injury. Bayer later reported the Illinois appellate court upheld the defense verdict. |
| 2023 | Gordon | Missouri | Defense verdict | Jury found for Monsanto. |
| 2022 | Ferro | Missouri | Defense verdict | St. Louis County jury found for Monsanto. |
| 2022 | Alesi | Missouri | Defense verdict | First Roundup trial in St. Louis County. Jury found for Monsanto. |
| 2022 | Johnson | Oregon | Defense verdict | Oregon jury found for Monsanto. |
| 2022 | Shelton | Missouri | Defense verdict | Jackson County jury found for Monsanto. |
| 2021 | Stephens | California | Defense verdict | San Bernardino County jury found Roundup was not the cause of the plaintiff’s cancer. |
| 2021 | Clark | California | Defense verdict | Los Angeles County jury found plaintiff failed to prove Roundup exposure caused the child’s lymphoma. |
| 2019 | Pilliod | California | $2.055 billion plaintiff verdict | Trial court reduced the award to about $86.7 million. The reduced judgment survived appellate review. |
| 2019 | Hardeman | Federal MDL / California | $80.27 million plaintiff verdict | Trial court reduced the verdict to about $25.2 million. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, and the U.S. Supreme Court declined review. |
| 2018 | Johnson | California | $289.2 million plaintiff verdict | First Roundup trial verdict. Trial court reduced the award to $78.5 million, and the California Court of Appeal later reduced it to about $20.5 million. |
Bottom line: Roundup plaintiffs have won several massive verdicts, but the headline numbers often do not survive unchanged. Trial courts and appellate courts have repeatedly reduced punitive damages. Still, the plaintiff verdicts remain powerful evidence of jury anger at Monsanto’s conduct and continue to drive settlement pressure.
Cancers Included in the Roundup Lawsuit
The Roundup lawsuit primarily focuses on cancers linked to glyphosate, the active ingredient in the widely used herbicide. Research and legal claims have associated glyphosate exposure with specific types of cancer, with the strongest connection to non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). However, other cancers have also been included in the litigation based on emerging evidence and individual case reports. Here are the main cancers involved:
1. Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma (NHL)
Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma is the most commonly cited cancer in Roundup lawsuits. Studies have shown a significant association between glyphosate exposure and an increased risk of developing NHL, particularly among agricultural workers, landscapers, and others with prolonged exposure to the herbicide. Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma affects the lymphatic system and can include several subtypes, such as:
- Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL)
- Follicular lymphoma
- Mantle cell lymphoma
2. Multiple Myeloma
Multiple myeloma, a cancer that affects plasma cells in the bone marrow, has also been linked to glyphosate exposure. Some studies suggest that agricultural workers exposed to glyphosate may have a higher risk of developing multiple myeloma compared to the general population. How strong is the data? It is not strong enough to attract many lawyers to these claims. Our firm is not handling multiple myeloma Roundup claims. But the science is continuing to evolve so we have no idea if these claims will one day be viable.
3. Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL)
Chronic lymphocytic leukemia is a type of cancer affecting white blood cells and is sometimes included in Roundup claims. Evidence suggests a potential connection between glyphosate exposure and certain blood cancers like CLL.
4. Leukemia
Beyond chronic lymphocytic leukemia, other types of leukemia have been cited in Roundup lawsuits. While the evidence is not as extensive as for NHL, some claimants have alleged that glyphosate exposure contributed to their leukemia diagnosis. Our firm is not handling these.
5. Soft Tissue Sarcomas
Although less commonly discussed, some studies have suggested a potential link between glyphosate and rare cancers like soft tissue sarcomas. These cancers develop in the connective tissues, including muscles, fat, and blood vessels. Our firm is not handling these.
6. Other Cancers
While the strongest scientific links exist for non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and other blood cancers, Roundup lawsuits have occasionally included other cancers based on individual exposure histories and medical evidence. For example:
- Lung cancer (in individuals without a significant smoking history but with heavy glyphosate exposure)
- Kidney cancer
- Pancreatic cancer
To be clear, our law firm is only handling non-Hodgkin lymphoma and CLL claims.
Why Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma Leads the Litigation
The focus on NHL in the Roundup lawsuits stems from decades of scientific research, including studies published by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) in 2015. The IARC classified glyphosate as a “probable human carcinogen” based on strong evidence linking it to NHL. This classification provided a foundation for thousands of claims filed against Monsanto (now owned by Bayer). While there is a lot of smoke surrounding other cancers (and Parkinson’s disease) with Roundup, our lawyers have focused only on NHL claims.
You Can Still File a Roundup Lawsuit
Even though the Roundup litigation has been going on for years, it is not too late to file your own Roundup lawsuit as long as you were only recently diagnosed (within the last three years) with NHL as a result of Roundup exposure.
Newly diagnosed Roundup cancer cases present robust grounds for viable lawsuits. Our Roundup legal team originally anticipates that new cases will likely yield significantly higher settlement amounts per individual than settled cases. Do we still think that? We are less certain. But we still believe very strongly in these claims.
Contact a Roundup Lawyer
If you wish to pursue a Roundup cancer lawsuit, please contact us at 800-322-3010 or schedule a free online consultation.
