Roundup Litigation: A Timeline of Key Verdicts, Settlements, and Legal Battles

Note for Law Firms: Bookmark this page! We will be continuously updating this resource with the latest details, verdicts, settlements, and key developments in the ongoing Roundup litigation.

The litigation surrounding Roundup weedkiller, manufactured by Monsanto (a subsidiary of Bayer AG), has been a complex and closely watched legal saga. Allegations that the herbicide’s active ingredient, glyphosate, causes non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL) have led to tens of thousands of lawsuits across the United States. This article synthesizes key events, verdicts, and settlements in this ongoing litigation, providing a timeline of important developments.

Are you a law firm navigating the complexities of Roundup or other mass tort and class action cases? Verus LLC provides comprehensive case management support services tailored to the unique needs of large-scale litigation.

Supreme Court Considers Roundup Appeal 

5/14/2026

The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments on April 27 regarding the appeal of a Missouri man who had been awarded $1.25 million after the jury found that Monsanto had failed to warn him about the risks of using its popular weedkiller, Roundup. The key issue to be decided before the high court is whether the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) preempts the plaintiff’s failure-to-warn claim involving the Roundup label despite the fact that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has not required that warning.  

Also at issue are the rights of state juries to decide whether herbicides, pesticides and other chemicals used in agriculture should carry cancer warnings when those substances are already highly regulated by the EPA.  

The case was tried in September 2023 with the jury siding with the plaintiff on his failure-to-warn claim but finding for Monsanto on the defective design and negligence claims. A Missouri appellate court declined Monsanto’s request to overturn the verdict after which Monsanto appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.  

In his argument before the court, plaintiff’s counsel sought to refute the defendant’s contention that there is a difference of opinion among the various circuit courts on the issue of preemption; he also rebutted Monsanto’s claim that the existing label could not be changed, pointing to 44 instances in which the company had updated the weedkiller’s label. 

Counsel for Monsanto pointed out that the EPA is responsible for weighing any need to warn about dangers of herbicides against their usefulness for farmers as well as to protect against overwarning. He also stated there are concerns regarding the potential confusion engendered by a patchwork of conflicting state regulations. 

The risks of Roundup and its key ingredient glyphosate remain hotly debated, with the EPA ruling the chemical is not likely to be carcinogenic while the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer has determined the chemical is “probably carcinogenic”.  

Also at stake is the $7.25 billion settlement deal designed to resolve all current and future Roundup claims that have been filed by claimants alleging they developed cancer as a result of their use of the popular weedkiller. An opinion from the court is expected by the end of June.

• • Mid-1970s: Roundup, containing glyphosate, is first introduced by Monsanto and becomes a widely used herbicide.
  • Mid-1990s: The introduction of “Roundup Ready” genetically modified crops significantly increases Roundup sales as farmers can spray directly on their crops.
  • 2015: Following the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer classifying glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans,” the first lawsuits alleging a link between Roundup and cancer are filed.
  • 2016: The Roundup multidistrict litigation (Roundup MDL) is formed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California under the supervision of Judge Vince Chhabria. 
  • August 2018: In the first Roundup lawsuit to go to trial, a California jury awards groundskeeper Dewayne “Lee” Johnson $289 million (later reduced to $20.5 million on appeal) against Monsanto, finding that his NHL was caused by Roundup exposure and that the company failed to warn of the risks. This verdict triggers a surge in new filings.
  • May 2019: A California jury awards Alberta and Alva Pilliod over $2 billion (later reduced to $87 million) for their NHL, which they claimed was due to decades of Roundup use.
  • March 2019: In the first federal bellwether trial, Edwin Hardeman is awarded $78.3 million (later upheld at $25 million on appeal) after a jury finds his NHL was caused by Roundup.

• July 2020: Bayer announces a $10.1 billion settlement to resolve most of the approximately 125,000 existing Roundup claims. This includes $1.25 billion set aside for potential future Roundup claims.

• February 2021: Bayer reaches a formal agreement for a $2 billion deal to address future Roundup cancer claims, establishing a fund for compensation and a science panel. This Bayer agreement faces judicial scrutiny and delays.

• June 2022: The U.S. Supreme Court denies Bayer’s appeal of the Hardeman verdict, upholding the $25 million award. Also, The Court rejects another Bayer bid to dismiss the $87 million Pilliod verdict.

• July 2021: Bayer announces it will end U.S. residential sales of its glyphosate-based herbicides, including Roundup, by 2023, citing litigation risk not safety concerns as the primary reason. The company will continue to sell to professional and agricultural markets.

• October 2021: The California Supreme Court denies Bayer’s request to review the Johnson case, letting the reduced $20.5 million verdict stand.

• January 2024: A Philadelphia jury awards John McKivison $2.25 billion, finding his NHL was caused by Roundup. This verdict is later drastically reduced by a judge to $404 million.

• December 2023: In Philadelphia, a plaintiff wins a $3.5 million Roundup verdict, including $3 million in punitive damages.

• January 2024: Lead plaintiffs’ firms in the Roundup MDL revise their request for common benefit fees to $20.23 million, allocating 81 percent to themselves, leading to objections from other firms.
• Recent Developments (Post-November 2023): While Philadelphia had been a significant venue for Roundup trials, no new trials have been scheduled there since November 2023, although around 430 cases remained pending. Plaintiffs’ firms are actively pursuing cases in other jurisdictions, securing a $2 billion verdict in Georgia and confidential settlements in Chicago and New York. Future trials are expected in St. Louis and Chicago in 2024. The Philadelphia court may be awaiting appellate rulings on key issues like federal preemption before resuming trials.
• March 2026:  Bayer AG, parent company to agrochemical giant Monsanto, has filed a $7.25 billion nationwide class settlement in Missouri state court in St. Louis, designed to be paid out over as many as 21 years to settle all current and future claims involving its popular weedkiller, Roundup.  There are over 4000 active cases in the MDL pending in the U.S.D.C. for the Northern District of California before U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria and tens of thousands more pending in state courts across the nation; the lawsuits were filed by claimants who allege that their use of Roundup and exposure to its active ingredient glyphosate caused them to develop Non-Hodgkin lymphoma and other health complications. In a statement on February 17 by Bill Anderson, CEO of Bayer stated:“The proposed class settlement agreement, together with the Supreme Court case, provides an essential path out of the litigation uncertainty and enables us to devote our full attention to furthering the innovations that lie at the core of our mission: Health for all, Hunger for none. This litigation and the resulting cost underscore the need for guidance from the Supreme Court on clear regulation in American agriculture. The class settlement and Supreme Court case are both necessary to help bring the strongest, most certain and most timely containment to this litigation.”Bayer outlined the proposed settlement structure in its announcement:“To fund the class, Monsanto will make declining capped annual payments for up to 21 years totaling up to 7.25 billion U.S. dollars, following court approval. The long-term payment stream will provide the company with both greater certainty and control regarding its litigation costs for current claims and potential future claimants.”The related issue of the preemption of a state’s failure-to-warn cases by federal pesticide-labeling rules is also pending before the US Supreme Court; a ruling in favor of Bayer could severely curtail the ability of plaintiffs to pursue litigation.The settlement has met resistance, however; citing numerous red flags, 14 law firms representing 20,000 plaintiffs who sued Bayer claiming personal injuries are urging the judge in Missouri where the settlement was filed to delay review of the settlement terms for 60 days, arguing that they need additional time to review the 600-page settlement document to avoid the rights of plaintiffs being violated. They also claim that the settlement favors occupational users of the weedkiller to the detriment of residential users. In their motion the law firms state:“It is hard to escape the impression that the proposed settlement would give Monsanto everything it desires – a near-complete release of liability for Monsanto and its parent company, Bayer AG – while giving inadequate consideration to many putative class members, who would surrender their substantive rights in exchange for settlement offers that may never result in payment.”

The Roundup litigation has revolved around several critical issues:

• Expert Evidence and Legal Causation

Plaintiffs argue that glyphosate in Roundup causes Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma (NHL), presenting scientific and epidemiological evidence to support their claims.

• Failure to Warn and Consumer Protection

Plaintiffs contend that Monsanto was aware of the potential cancer risks associated with Roundup but failed to provide adequate warnings to consumers.

• Federal Preemption and EPA Regulations

Bayer has argued that federal labeling requirements approved by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) preempt state law failure-to-warn claims. The courts have been divided on this issue.

• Punitive Damages and Corporate Liability

Juries have often awarded significant punitive damages, finding that Monsanto acted with malice or reckless disregard for consumer safety. These awards have frequently been reduced on appeal.

• Common Benefit Fees and MDL Allocation

Disputes have arisen among plaintiffs’ law firms regarding the allocation of common benefit fees, which are intended to compensate firms that contribute to the overall success of the MDL.

Despite significant settlements, the Roundup litigation continues to evolve. Tens of thousands of cases remain pending, and new trials are being scheduled across the country. Appellate rulings on key legal issues will likely shape the future landscape of this litigation. The debate over the safety of glyphosate and the responsibility of manufacturers to warn consumers about potential risks remains central to these ongoing legal battles.

Navigating the complexities of mass tort litigation like the Roundup cases requires experienced support. At Verus LLC, we provide comprehensive case management services, including settlement administration, medical record review, and lien resolution. Our technology-driven solutions and industry expertise empower law firms to streamline operations, optimize efficiency, and focus on achieving the best outcomes for their clients.

Ready to elevate your mass tort and class action case management?