DAILY Bites
-
The proposed deal totals $7.25 billion and is intended to resolve thousands of U.S. Roundup-related cancer claims.
-
Lawsuits allege Bayer failed to warn users that Roundup could cause cancer, including non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
-
The settlement still requires court approval before payouts and final terms take effect.
DAILY Discussion
Agrochemical company Bayer and lawyers representing cancer patients announced Tuesday a proposed $7.25 billion settlement aimed at resolving thousands of U.S. lawsuits claiming the company did not adequately warn consumers that its widely used weedkiller Roundup might cause cancer.
The litigation surrounding Roundup and its active ingredient, glyphosate, dates back years, to a time before glyphosate’s creator, Monsanto, was acquired by Bayer.
On February 17, 2026, Monsanto announced a proposed nationwide class settlement aimed at resolving current and future U.S. claims alleging that Roundup exposure caused non-Hodgkin lymphoma. The agreement, filed in the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, Missouri, seeks to establish a long-term claims program funded by up to $7.25 billion over 21 years, pending court approval.
The proposed class settlement and a pending U.S. Supreme Court case are described by the company as complementary components of a broader strategy to contain ongoing litigation.
According to the announcement, the settlement would address claims from individuals who allege exposure to Roundup prior to February 17, 2026, and who either currently have a diagnosis of NHL or receive one within 16 years following final approval of the agreement.
The program would be administered by a professional claims administrator and funded through declining capped annual payments over a 21-year period, providing what the company describes as greater financial certainty.
“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,” said Bill Anderson, CEO of Bayer. “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.”
Monsanto stated that it is taking these actions “solely to contain the litigation,” and that the agreements do not include any admission of liability or wrongdoing. The company maintains that leading regulators, including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and European Union authorities, have concluded that glyphosate-based herbicides can be used safely and are not carcinogenic when used as directed.
The proposed settlement comes as the U.S. Supreme Court prepares to hear arguments in the Durnell case, which centers on whether federal pesticide law preempts state law failure-to-warn claims. Bayer argues that because the EPA approved Roundup without a cancer warning, state-based claims should be barred. The Supreme Court’s decision could affect outstanding damage awards and pending appeals not covered by the proposed settlement.
Approximately 200,000 Roundup-related claims have been made against Bayer, including more than 125,000 lawsuits filed since 2015. Jury verdicts have been mixed, with 13 verdicts for Bayer and 11 for plaintiffs, including a $2.1 billion award by a Georgia jury last year. Many other claims have been resolved through separate settlements.
Under the newly proposed settlement, compensation would vary depending on factors such as age at diagnosis, severity of illness, and level of exposure. For example, an agricultural, industrial, or turf worker diagnosed before age 60 with an aggressive form of NHL could receive an average of $165,000. A residential user diagnosed between ages 60 and 77 with a less aggressive form could receive an average of $20,000, while those diagnosed at age 78 or older could receive an average of $10,000.
“No settlement can erase a diagnosis, but this agreement is designed to ensure that both today’s and tomorrow’s patients have access to meaningful compensation,” attorney Christopher Seeger, who would represent current claimants under the settlement told The Associated Press.
However, not all attorneys representing plaintiffs view the proposed payouts as sufficient. Attorney Matt Clement, who represents about 280 Roundup plaintiffs, said the proposed payouts “are exceedingly too small” and indicated that many of his clients may opt out.
If too many plaintiffs opt out, Monsanto has reserved the right to terminate the settlement without making payments, though the company has not specified what threshold would trigger that decision.
In addition to the Roundup settlement, Monsanto has reached confidential agreements to resolve certain other glyphosate cases and earlier settled eight remaining PCB verdicts related to the Sky Valley Education Center in Washington state. The company also previously resolved PCB environmental cases with Illinois and West Virginia.
As a result of these resolutions and associated litigation costs, Bayer announced it will increase its litigation provisions and liabilities from 7.8 billion euros as of September 30, 2025, to 11.8 billion euros. The company expects approximately 5 billion euros in litigation-related payouts in 2026 and anticipates negative free cash flow for the year. To reflect the settlement agreements, Bayer has postponed its announcement of 2025 year-end financial results and 2026 guidance to March 4.
Bayer, which acquired Monsanto in 2018, has already removed glyphosate from Roundup products sold in the U.S. residential lawn and garden market, though it continues to sell glyphosate-based products for agricultural use. The company has also supported legislative efforts at the state and federal level to clarify labeling requirements and limit litigation risk. North Dakota and Georgia have enacted laws shielding pesticide manufacturers from certain state-level failure-to-warn claims when products comply with federal labeling requirements.
The proposed settlement remains subject to court approval. As part of the process, class members will be notified and given the opportunity to opt out before the agreement becomes final.
