Free Case Evaluation
FILL OUT THE FORM BELOW
TO REQUEST YOUR CASE REVIEW
Roundup Cancer Lawsuits
A Roundup lawsuit cannot undo the cancer diagnosis or the treatment burden it brings.
When the herbicide you used for years to clear your fields, your fence lines, or your yard is connected to a non-Hodgkin lymphoma diagnosis, you may have a claim against Bayer (which acquired Monsanto in 2018).
Filing a Roundup cancer lawsuit can hold the manufacturer accountable for decades of marketing the herbicide as safe while internal records told a different story.
Roundup litigation is among the longest-running mass torts in U.S. history.
The trial lawyers reviewing Roundup claims have a winning track record in product-liability and toxic-exposure cases.
It is not easy to learn that a household product caused a cancer that has changed your life or taken a loved one.
Survivors and surviving family may be able to sue for compensation that helps absorb the financial impact of the diagnosis and the treatment.
The litigation is high-stakes, and Bayer's defense team fights hard. Three big bellwether plaintiff verdicts in the original federal MDL anchored what is possible. Cases continue in state courts and through individual filings even after the federal MDL closed to new filings.
Our firm reviews Roundup non-Hodgkin lymphoma claims and works with plaintiffs nationwide.
If you used Roundup regularly and were diagnosed with NHL, contact us for a free consultation to review your case now.
- $100+ million recovered w/ 98% recovery rate
- Trial-tested w/ award-winning track record fighting for the injured
- Free Legal Evaluation - You Pay Nothing Unless We Win
What Constitutes a Roundup Cancer Claim?
A Roundup cancer claim is a product-liability action alleging that long-term exposure to glyphosate-based herbicides caused or contributed to a non-Hodgkin lymphoma diagnosis.
The claims rest on a body of evidence linking glyphosate to NHL and on internal Monsanto documents showing the company influenced regulatory science for decades.
The catalyst was the March 2015 International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC, the cancer-research arm of the World Health Organization) classification of glyphosate as "probably carcinogenic to humans" (Group 2A). The IARC monograph triggered the wave of litigation that followed. The U.S. EPA continues to take a different position on glyphosate's carcinogenicity, and that regulatory disagreement is part of every Roundup case.
Two compounds matter most in the science of these claims. Glyphosate is the active herbicide. POEA (polyethoxylated tallow amine) is the surfactant historically added to Roundup formulations to help the active ingredient penetrate plant tissue. Plaintiffs' experts argue that POEA increases skin and lung absorption of glyphosate during application, intensifying human exposure beyond what glyphosate alone would produce. AMPA (aminomethylphosphonic acid), the primary glyphosate metabolite, accumulates in soil and crops and shows up in human urine measurements as a biomarker of exposure.
Three bellwether trials in the original federal MDL 2741 returned plaintiff verdicts: Johnson v. Monsanto ($289M, later reduced), Hardeman v. Monsanto ($80M, later reduced), and Pilliod v. Monsanto ($2.05B, later reduced). Each verdict survived appeal in significant respects, anchoring settlement values for the broader litigation.
Bayer announced an $11 billion settlement framework in June 2020 for existing and future claims. Tens of thousands of claims have resolved through that program. Other plaintiffs opted out, and new claims continue to be filed in state courts.
The federal MDL 2741 in the Northern District of California, presided over by Judge Vince Chhabria, resolved most of its centralized cases. State-court litigation, individual filings, and unresolved opt-out cases continue. It sits alongside other active toxic-tort cancer cases our firm continues to litigate.
If you used Roundup regularly and were diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma, you may still have a viable claim.
State-court filings continue. The discovery rule preserves many claims even when exposure was years before diagnosis.
"Long-term Roundup users diagnosed with NHL still have legal options, even after the original federal MDL closed."
Common NHL Subtypes in Roundup Claims:
- Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma (DLBCL)
- Follicular Lymphoma
- Mantle Cell Lymphoma
- Marginal Zone Lymphoma
- Small Lymphocytic Lymphoma / Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia
- Lymphoplasmacytic Lymphoma / Waldenstrom Macroglobulinemia
- Cutaneous T-Cell Lymphoma (mycosis fungoides)
- Burkitt Lymphoma
The most common qualifying plaintiffs are farmers, agricultural workers, ranchers, landscapers, groundskeepers, golf course workers, nursery workers, and homeowners with documented heavy long-term Roundup use.
When you sit down with a Roundup attorney, you can review the unique exposure history of your case to determine if you have standing to file a claim.
When you contact us, our intake team reviews your exposure history, your diagnosis, and the applicable filing window in your state.
How Much Is a Roundup Cancer Case Worth?
Every Roundup case is unique, and the potential value can fluctuate dramatically based on the diagnosis, the exposure history, and the procedural track.
The 2020 Bayer settlement framework allocated approximately $9.6 billion for existing and future Roundup claims, with a separate $1.25 billion fund for an unsettled future-claims program. Individual settlement values within that framework varied widely, generally tiered by NHL subtype, treatment burden, age at diagnosis, and exposure documentation.
While compensation cannot undo the cancer, it can help cover the catastrophic costs of NHL treatment and the financial loss that follows.
Depending on the circumstances, you may pursue an individual settlement, opt-out litigation in state court, or, if appropriate, a survival action or wrongful death claim on behalf of a deceased family member.
Settlement values for plaintiffs who litigate in state court rather than join the settlement program can be higher or lower depending on the specific case strength. The three big bellwether verdicts ($289M, $80M, $2.05B) demonstrate what juries can do when the evidence is presented effectively, even after appellate reductions.
Examples of Possible Roundup Damages:
- Past and future medical bills (chemotherapy, radiation, immunotherapy, stem-cell transplant, ongoing oncology care)
- Lost income during treatment and lost future earning capacity
- Loss of benefits including disability, retirement contributions, and health insurance impact
- Loss of household services if cancer altered the plaintiff's role at home
- Pain and suffering, emotional distress
- Loss of consortium for spouses
- Wrongful death damages and survival actions in fatal cases
- Punitive damages where evidence supports finding that Monsanto knew of the risk and failed to warn
Our team reviews exposure history, diagnosis, treatment, and damages to evaluate the potential value of your claim and the best procedural track for your specific situation.
What Does a Roundup Lawyer Do?
Roundup litigation is a complex, decade-old toxic-tort fight. The right legal team makes the difference between a viable claim and a missed opportunity. Here is what a Roundup attorney does for you:
Consultation: Free, confidential intake to review your exposure history (years of use, frequency, application method, brand and formulation), your diagnosis (NHL subtype, stage, treatment), and the applicable filing window in your state. We assess whether your case fits the settlement program, an opt-out track, or a state-court filing.
Exposure Documentation: Build a documented exposure timeline using receipts, employment records, agricultural records, photographs, witness statements, and any retained product packaging. Strong exposure documentation drives strong claim values.
Medical Records: Pull pathology reports confirming the NHL subtype, treatment records (chemotherapy, radiation, immunotherapy, transplant), oncology notes, and any related survival action documentation.
Filing Strategy: Decide whether to file in the appropriate state court, join an existing settlement program, or pursue an opt-out individual case. Strategy depends on diagnosis severity, exposure documentation, and the procedural posture in your state.
Communication & Support: Throughout the multi-year case process, our team keeps you informed of bellwether outcomes, settlement program updates, and individual case milestones.
Skilled representation provides the best chance to hold Monsanto/Bayer accountable and recover what your family needs to absorb the impact of the diagnosis. For broader context on how injury claims are valued, see our explanation of what your injury case is worth.
Roundup Settlement Program vs. Opt-Out Litigation
The Bayer settlement framework processes claims through a confidential matrix tiered by NHL subtype, age at diagnosis, treatment burden, and exposure history. Settlement values within the program tend to be lower than the bellwether verdicts but offer faster resolution and certainty.
Opt-out plaintiffs pursue individual cases through state courts. The path is longer, more contested, and more uncertain. The potential upside is higher when the evidence is strong, the exposure is well-documented, and the diagnosis is severe.
Whether to participate in the settlement program or opt out is a strategic decision specific to your case. We review the trade-offs with you during the intake.
Some plaintiffs missed the original program window. Whether late-filed claims qualify depends on the specific framework provisions and your state's statute of limitations.
Our attorneys help you evaluate the procedural choices and the likely outcomes based on the unique details of your case.
Who Can Be Sued in a Roundup Case?
The defendant in Roundup litigation is Bayer AG, the German pharmaceutical and agricultural-chemical company that acquired Monsanto in 2018.
Bayer assumed Monsanto's liabilities in the acquisition. The legal entity in the U.S. is Monsanto Company, now a Bayer subsidiary, but Bayer's parent-company resources stand behind the litigation.
Distributor and retailer claims are generally unsuccessful. The litigation focuses on the manufacturer.
The Bayer corporate-level financial ability to satisfy verdicts has been a continuing factor in settlement discussions.
- Bayer AG / Monsanto Company: Primary defendant. Manufacturer of glyphosate-based Roundup formulations.
- Roundup product line: Roundup Original Concentrate, Roundup Ready-to-Use, Roundup Pro, Roundup QuikPro, Roundup Custom, and other formulations sold for residential, professional landscaping, and agricultural use.
- Generic glyphosate products: Generic glyphosate herbicides have been the subject of separate litigation streams. Whether your case fits the Roundup program or a generic-glyphosate track depends on the brand and formulation you used.
- Agricultural employer claims: Some plaintiffs have separate occupational-exposure claims against employers who failed to provide adequate protective equipment. Those are workers' compensation or third-party tort claims and run on separate tracks.
Roundup litigation involves powerful corporate defendants with deep litigation budgets. Going up against Bayer requires an experienced product-liability legal team with the means and the willingness to litigate when necessary.
The history of bellwether plaintiff verdicts demonstrates that this fight can be won. A strong, well-documented case is the foundation.
