Roundup Lawsuit

More than 80% of Americans have glyphosate in their urine. That’s the same chemical in Roundup, the weed killer sitting in millions of sheds across the country.

Lawsuits say Roundup doesn’t just kill weeds. It’s been linked to cancer, especially non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. And if you’ve been exposed, there’s a good chance you’ve got options.

Call (833) 552-7274 today or contact us online. At LitigationConnect, our network of lawyers works directly with people exposed to Roundup. A local attorney will review your case and let you know if you're eligible for compensation.

Allegations Against Monsanto

Monsanto’s biggest headache doesn’t come directly from Roundup itself, but from what they allegedly knew and what they didn’t tell the public.

Failure to Warn the Public

The heart of these allegations lies in Monsanto's failure to warn. Under U.S. product liability law—specifically statutes like California's Proposition 65 (the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986)—manufacturers must inform consumers clearly and prominently if their products contain chemicals known to cause cancer or other serious health issues. Plaintiffs argue that Monsanto repeatedly violated this duty, choosing profits over transparency.

For decades, Roundup labels made no mention of glyphosate’s potential link to cancer. Instead, the company marketed it aggressively as safe for homeowners, gardeners, and farmers. Plaintiffs insist Monsanto deliberately misrepresented or omitted critical safety information, leaving millions in the dark about risks they might have avoided.

Allegations of Manipulated Science

Plaintiffs also claim Monsanto manipulated scientific research and regulatory assessments to protect Roundup’s image. Court documents accuse the company of ghostwriting studies—having internal scientists draft papers and then paying outside experts to put their names on them. Monsanto allegedly influenced regulators and research institutions to minimize or dismiss studies linking glyphosate exposure to cancer.

According to internal company emails and court documents revealed during trials, Monsanto executives appeared aware of glyphosate’s potential dangers but publicly denied the evidence or labeled it unreliable.

Legal Basis and Liability

Legally, these allegations rest on principles of negligence and strict product liability. Under laws such as California Civil Code §1714, manufacturers owe a duty to consumers to disclose known risks associated with their products clearly and effectively. Monsanto’s alleged disregard for this duty could hold the company liable for extensive damages to victims who developed illnesses linked to glyphosate exposure.

The argument isn't merely about science—it centers on corporate accountability. If Monsanto knew the risks yet chose silence, they not only breached consumer trust but potentially broke multiple state and federal laws intended to protect public health.

These allegations form the backbone of the ongoing litigation, and their validity continues to face intense scrutiny in courtrooms nationwide.

Regulatory and Scientific Assessments

The IARC Assessment: A Red Flag

In 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)—an arm of the World Health Organization—shocked Monsanto executives by classifying glyphosate as a “probable human carcinogen” (Group 2A). Their analysis drew from numerous independent studies linking glyphosate exposure to increased risks of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and other cancers.

Specifically, the IARC assessment cited evidence from human epidemiological studies, animal testing, and lab research indicating DNA damage linked to glyphosate exposure. This classification dramatically shifted public perception, adding fuel to the legal firestorm already brewing around Roundup.

EPA’s Opposing View: Safe as Directed

In sharp contrast, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)—responsible for regulating herbicides under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA, 7 U.S.C. §136)—has repeatedly declared glyphosate safe if users follow instructions on the label. The EPA maintains that glyphosate poses no cancer risk to humans based on extensive internal reviews.

Their assessments rely heavily on industry-conducted studies, many submitted by Monsanto itself. Critics argue this creates conflicts of interest that skew findings, but the EPA insists their review processes meet stringent scientific standards and transparency requirements mandated by FIFRA.

Why the Contradiction?

So, why the gap between these regulatory bodies?

• Different evaluation standards: IARC primarily looks at the inherent potential of a substance to cause cancer, even in extreme scenarios. The EPA evaluates the risk based on typical usage patterns, assuming users follow label instructions precisely.
• Influence of industry studies: Monsanto’s involvement in producing many studies reviewed by EPA has drawn intense criticism, raising questions about potential bias in the approval process.

Implications in Court

Courts have directly grappled with this contradiction. Plaintiffs frequently point to IARC's classification as proof of Monsanto’s negligence. Monsanto’s defense teams counter aggressively, emphasizing the EPA’s conclusions as definitive evidence that Roundup poses no realistic risk under normal conditions.

Legal Proceedings and Verdicts

Early Trials Set the Tone

The first big Roundup trial came in August 2018 in California state court. Dewayne Johnson, a school groundskeeper diagnosed with terminal non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, argued years of Roundup exposure made him sick. The jury sided with Johnson, slapping Monsanto with a massive $289 million verdict. Judge Suzanne Ramos Bolanos later reduced the total to $78.5 million—still a strong message. Johnson’s victory laid a clear blueprint for future plaintiffs: prove exposure, prove harm, and juries will listen.

The next trial, Edwin Hardeman v. Monsanto (2019), moved to federal court under multidistrict litigation (MDL 2741, Northern District of California). Hardeman's attorneys argued successfully that Monsanto negligently concealed glyphosate’s dangers. The jury awarded Hardeman $80 million (later reduced), further solidifying a disturbing trend for Monsanto.

Record Verdicts Keep Coming

The next major case involved a California couple, Alva and Alberta Pilliod, who claimed decades of Roundup use contributed directly to their cancer diagnoses. In May 2019, a jury in Alameda County Superior Court (Pilliod v. Monsanto) delivered a staggering verdict of over $2 billion. Judge Winifred Smith later slashed it down to $86.7 million, citing constitutional limits and precedents set by the U.S. Supreme Court in cases like BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore (1996), which restrict punitive damage amounts. Despite this reduction, Monsanto now faced unmistakable legal momentum against them.

Fast forward to March 2025, when a Georgia jury handed Bayer—Monsanto’s parent company—a fresh nightmare: a nearly $2.1 billion verdict in a case where the plaintiff demonstrated decades of exposure and clear links to non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Bayer’s immediate response was to appeal aggressively, citing contradictory science, regulatory assurances, and prior court rulings.

Bayer’s Legal Strategy and Appeals

Monsanto (and now Bayer) have consistently appealed these verdicts. Their legal arguments rely heavily on two points:

• Federal Preemption: Bayer argues federal law (specifically FIFRA, under 7 U.S.C. §136v) preempts state tort claims. The logic was if the EPA approves glyphosate labels without cancer warnings, state courts can't require additional warnings. So far, courts have largely rejected this argument, emphasizing that federal approval doesn't eliminate manufacturer responsibility to disclose risks fully.
• Scientific Evidence Challenges: Bayer repeatedly cites EPA findings labeling glyphosate safe. Attorneys aggressively challenge plaintiffs' experts, aiming to undermine jury confidence in any evidence contradicting EPA’s conclusions.

Despite these aggressive legal tactics, Monsanto struggles to reverse jury decisions completely. Courts routinely uphold reduced damages, maintaining pressure on Bayer to reconsider how they handle future litigation.

Settlements and Ongoing Litigation

Bayer’s Massive Settlement Efforts

By June 2020, Bayer began negotiating aggressively to settle thousands of Roundup claims at once. Ultimately, they agreed to pay between $8.8 billion and $9.6 billion to resolve most pending lawsuits. They also set aside an additional $1.25 billion specifically for claims that might emerge later from people exposed to glyphosate but not yet diagnosed.

This comprehensive settlement package wasn't an admission of guilt—companies rarely admit wrongdoing during settlements. Instead, it represented Bayer's urgent attempt to contain liability, limit courtroom unpredictability, and reassure anxious shareholders watching stock prices tumble after each major verdict.

Steps to Take if You've Been Affected

If you've used Roundup regularly and received a cancer diagnosis like non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, you might wonder what's next. Here’s exactly what you need to do to protect your rights and strengthen your position.

1. Get Medical Documentation Immediately

Medical records form the backbone of your claim. Document your diagnosis thoroughly—get copies of pathology reports, medical histories, and treatment details. The clearer the evidence of your condition, the stronger your claim becomes.

2. Document Your Exposure to Roundup

Collect evidence showing your history with Roundup:

• Proof of purchases, such as receipts, credit card statements, or retailer records.
• Photographs of product packaging or labels, if possible.
• Witness statements from coworkers or family members who observed your frequent use.
• Employment records if your Roundup use happened at work (especially relevant under state workers’ compensation laws).

3. Check the Statute of Limitations

Each state sets deadlines—called statutes of limitations—for filing product liability or personal injury lawsuits. For example:

• California: Typically two years from diagnosis or discovery of the illness (California Code of Civil Procedure §335.1).
• Texas: Two years from diagnosis or injury discovery (Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code §16.003).

Miss these deadlines, and the law bars your claim, no matter how strong.

4. Contact an Experienced Product Liability Attorney

Roundup lawsuits aren’t simple—they involve complex scientific evidence, federal and state regulations, and aggressive corporate legal teams. Your best move is finding a local attorney familiar with product liability law, specifically glyphosate cases. They’ll evaluate your claim, explain state-specific laws, and clarify your chances in court.

5. File Your Claim

Once you secure legal representation, your attorney files your lawsuit, typically joining other cases in multidistrict litigation (MDL), like MDL 2741 in the Northern District of California. MDLs streamline discovery, coordinate legal arguments, and simplify case handling—maximizing your claim’s efficiency and strength.

Taking these specific steps quickly places you in the best possible position to hold Bayer accountable, recover compensation, and move forward with your life.

Hold Bayer Accountable—Get the Justice You Need

Bayer has an army of lawyers, but you have something more powerful: your right to hold them accountable.

Call (833) 552-7274 today or contact us online and let LitigationConnect match you with a trusted lawyer ready to fight for you.