The Roundup lawsuit is among the largest and most complex mass tort litigations in recent history, involving thousands of plaintiffs who allege that exposure to Roundup, the widely used herbicide manufactured by Monsanto (now owned by Bayer), caused them to develop non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) and other cancers. The litigation also charges Monsanto with failing to warn consumers about the health risks posed by glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup.
Background of the Roundup Lawsuit
Roundup was historically one of the most popular weed killers in the world, utilized by homeowners, landscapers, and farmers. Scientific studies starting in the mid-2010s linked glyphosate exposure to an increased risk of NHL, leading several international health organizations, such as the World Health Organization (WHO), to classify glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen.
This association spurred thousands of individuals to file lawsuits against Monsanto, accusing the company of concealing evidence that Roundup posed cancer risks. The lawsuits primarily claim product liability, failure to warn, negligence, and wrongful death in some cases.
Multidistrict Litigation and State Court Actions
To manage the overwhelming volume of cases, federal lawsuits were consolidated into a multidistrict litigation (MDL No. 2741) based in the Northern District of California. As of August 2025, this MDL includes over 4,400 pending cases, with additional thousands filed in state courts across the nation.
The sheer volume of cases has prompted extensive discovery, scientific debates over causation, and numerous settlement negotiations.
Significant Trial Verdicts and Settlements
Early trials produced mixed but generally plaintiff-favorable results, with juries awarding over $8 billion in damages since 2023 and nearly $11 billion paid in settlements for approximately 100,000 claims.
Notably, a Missouri appellate court upheld a $611 million verdict in May 2025, affirming Bayer’s accountability for knowingly exposing consumers to a carcinogen without adequate warnings. This verdict reinforced momentum for further resolutions but was also part of ongoing appeals and challenges concerning evidence admissibility and damage assessments.
Claims Process and Compensation
Plaintiffs eligible under the Roundup litigation typically need to demonstrate a diagnosis of NHL or related cancers and documented use or exposure to Roundup. Settlements commonly offer payouts based on product purchase history and severity of illness.
Many claimants receive compensation for medical costs, lost wages, pain and suffering, and punitive damages meant to deter future misconduct.
Ongoing Issues and Future Outlook
The litigation remains active, with new cases still filed and several state and federal trials planned for late 2025. Legal disputes persist about causation science, statute of limitations, and damage calculations.
Meanwhile, Bayer continues to set aside substantial financial reserves—over $1.37 billion as of mid-2025—to cover ongoing and future Roundup litigation costs. The company also faces regulatory reviews and public health debates about glyphosate’s safety and environmental impact.
Conclusion
The Roundup lawsuit underscores the intersection of product liability law, public health concerns, and corporate accountability. It reveals the challenges of addressing widespread chemical exposure risks amid conflicting scientific opinions and evolving regulatory landscapes.
For individuals diagnosed with NHL or similar cancers, consulting specialized attorneys with experience in mass tort and environmental litigation remains critical to pursuing rightful compensation.
