Under Investigation

The June 2026 Supreme Court ruling and a proposed $7.25 billion class settlement have reshaped Roundup claims. Learn where things stand.

DefendantMonsanto (Bayer)
MDLMDL 2741
CourtN.D. Cal., Judge Vince Chhabria
Filing DeadlineClass settlement participation and opt-out deadlines are time-sensitive. New failure-to-warn suits face the June 2026 Supreme Court preemption ruling.

Roundup Lawsuit

Roundup is a glyphosate-based herbicide originally made by Monsanto, which Bayer acquired in 2018. It is the most widely used weed killer in the world. For years, tens of thousands of agricultural workers, landscapers, and home gardeners have alleged that long-term Roundup exposure caused non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), citing the WHO cancer agency’s 2015 classification of glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans.” Bayer maintains the product is safe and points to the EPA’s repeated conclusions that glyphosate is not likely to cause cancer.

A Litigation Transformed in 2026

Roundup has produced some of the largest product liability verdicts in American history — including a $2.25 billion Pennsylvania verdict in 2024 (later reduced) — and Bayer has paid roughly $11 billion to resolve more than 100,000 claims. But two 2026 developments fundamentally changed the landscape. First, in February 2026, Bayer and class counsel proposed a nationwide class settlement of approximately $7.25 billion, designed to resolve current and future NHL claims through a long-term compensation program; it received preliminary approval in Missouri state court and remains subject to objections and appeals. Second, on June 25, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 7–2 in Monsanto v. Durnell that the federal pesticide statute (FIFRA) preempts state-law failure-to-warn claims where the EPA has approved the product’s label without a cancer warning — a decision that bars the core legal theory behind most Roundup lawsuits going forward.

What This Means If You Have Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma

The Supreme Court’s ruling makes new failure-to-warn lawsuits extremely difficult. However, people diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma after Roundup exposure may still have options through the proposed class settlement’s compensation program, and roughly 4,000 cases remain pending in the federal MDL (MDL 2741, Northern District of California, Judge Vince Chhabria) alongside thousands more in state courts as courts sort out the ruling’s effect. Deadlines to participate in or opt out of the class settlement are time-sensitive.

Injuries Alleged in the Roundup Litigation

The litigation has centered on non-Hodgkin lymphoma and its subtypes, including diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, follicular lymphoma, and chronic lymphocytic leukemia, particularly among people with years of regular occupational or residential exposure.

Where Things Go From Here

Mass Tort America is monitoring the implementation of the Durnell decision and the status of the proposed class settlement. If you were diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma after significant Roundup exposure, a case review can help you understand whether the settlement program or another path applies to your situation — and the deadlines that come with it.

Injuries Linked to This Litigation

  • Non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL)
  • Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma
  • Follicular lymphoma
  • Chronic lymphocytic leukemia

Do You Qualify?

Significant Roundup exposure, typically through years of occupational or regular residential use
Later diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma or a related subtype
Note: the June 2026 Supreme Court ruling in Monsanto v. Durnell and the proposed class settlement significantly affect new claims

This litigation is not currently accepting new clients. Explore active litigation you may qualify for.

Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Submitting a form does not create an attorney client relationship.