Roundup Lawsuit Updates

This page is general legal education, not legal advice, and it reports on litigation that is moving quickly. Nothing here evaluates any individual reader’s claim or creates an attorney-client relationship.

• Roundup Cancer Lawsuits (main overview)
• Monsanto v. Durnell: What the Supreme Court Held
• Roundup and Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma
• Is Roundup Dangerous?
• What Is Glyphosate?

Judge Chhabria invited outside groups to file briefs on the question that now runs through every federal Roundup case. Does Durnell end the remaining claims, or does it leave the design defect theory standing? Briefs from outside the case are common at the Supreme Court and rare in a trial court. Asking for them here signals how much weight the judge puts on the answer.

The invitation comes ahead of the November 16 hearing on Monsanto’s first round of dismissal motions. Anyone with a federal case can ask their lawyer whether the plaintiffs’ lead counsel are answering those briefs.

Mike Dennis of Carlsbad, California used Roundup monthly for about two decades and was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma. A San Diego jury awarded him $332 million in 2023. The trial judge cut that to about $28 million: $7 million for his injuries and $21 million in punitive damages. A California appeals court affirmed the reduced award in November 2025.

On October 13 the Supreme Court granted Monsanto’s petition in Monsanto Co. v. Dennis, No. 26-139, wiped out the appeals court’s decision, and sent the case back to be reconsidered under Durnell. That kind of order decides nothing about Mr. Dennis’s case itself. It tells the California court to look again with the new rule in hand. Monsanto has said it will ask that court to throw out the verdict entirely rather than trim it.

For anyone holding a Roundup verdict won before June 2026, this is the path to expect. Monsanto is asking the Supreme Court to send those judgments back one by one, and the state courts then decide how much of each verdict rested on the label.

Merril Hoge, a former NFL player, mixed and sprayed Roundup on Idaho farms from 1977, starting at age 12. He was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma in 2003 and sued Monsanto in 2019. His case went through the federal MDL and came back to Idaho for trial. Monsanto then asked Judge David Nye to throw the whole case out under Durnell.

The judge split it. Mr. Hoge’s failure-to-warn claim is out, because the only warning theory left after Durnell was advertising, and he could not recall seeing any Roundup ads. His negligence and design defect claims go to a jury. The judge wrote that Durnell reaches the label and nothing else, and that Monsanto could have asked EPA to change the Roundup formula if it had wanted to. Monsanto’s own witnesses had testified that other formulas were available, and the company later switched to one.

Under Idaho law Mr. Hoge does not need an expert, or proof of a safer design, to put the defect question to a jury. Trial is set for February 2027. This is the first federal ruling after Durnell to let a design defect claim go to trial. The judge’s own closing line was that Durnell “threw a wrench in this case.” You can read the order (PDF, 19 pages).

Judge Chhabria held a short video conference on the federal Roundup cases. The court has divided the remaining federal cases into categories. He set a schedule for Monsanto to ask him to throw out the cases in Categories 3 and 4 under Durnell.

Monsanto’s motions are due February 12, 2027. Plaintiffs file their responses by February 26, and Monsanto replies by March 5. The judge will hear arguments by video on March 19, 2027. No ruling on the Category 3 and 4 cases will come before spring 2027.

One question runs through every Roundup case since June. Does a claim that the weed killer itself was unsafe hold up, once claims about its label are blocked? That is what the argument will turn on. Anyone with a federal case can ask their own lawyer which category it falls in.

The judge also told the court-appointed lead lawyers for plaintiffs to pass a message to every other plaintiff’s lawyer. In his view, plaintiffs will be best served by letting the lead lawyers argue the Durnell question for them, because the lead lawyers already know those arguments well.

Monsanto told the judge it may ask the court to take action against lawyers who have not collected the signed releases their clients’ settlements require. Those settled cases sit on an inactive list at the court until the paperwork is done, and Monsanto wants the list cleared. Anyone who settled a federal Roundup case and never signed a release can ask their lawyer where it stands.

A St. Louis County jury returned a unanimous verdict for Monsanto in Aretino v. Monsanto Co., the first Roundup trial since the Supreme Court ruling. The plaintiffs were Theresa Aretino, Betty Larkin and the family of Cynthia Fernandez. All three developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma after years of using Roundup.

The jury heard two claims. The first was that Roundup was defectively designed and unreasonably dangerous. The second was that Monsanto was negligent in selling it. The Supreme Court ruling had already taken the warning claim out of the case.

Bayer’s top litigation lawyer, Bill Dodero, said the verdict shows that people still pursuing Roundup claims will face serious challenges. The plaintiffs’ lawyers had not commented as of October 30, and no appeal has been announced.

The verdict decides only these three cases. It does not end any other Roundup case, and it does not change anyone’s filing deadline. Monsanto argues that Durnell also blocks design defect and negligence claims. Plaintiffs’ lawyers argue those claims survive. Judge Chhabria hears that question in federal court on November 16. The $7.25 billion class settlement is still waiting on Judge Boyer’s ruling.

Jury selection began the week of September 21 in Aretino v. Monsanto Co. (No. 20SL-CC03676). The three plaintiffs are Theresa Aretino, Cynthia Fernandez and Betty Larkin. All three used Roundup regularly and later developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Cynthia Fernandez died before the trial began.

Judge Brian May is presiding in St. Louis County Circuit Court. The jury heard opening statements on September 29. Testimony ran through October 14, paused, and resumed on October 26. The jury returned its verdict for Monsanto on October 29. All three plaintiffs had turned down the $7.25 billion class settlement rather than join it.

Durnell blocks claims built on the product label. So the plaintiffs tried the case on design defect and negligence. Their argument was that the weed killer itself was unreasonably dangerous to use, and that Monsanto was careless in selling it. This was the first test of whether a Roundup case could win a jury without the warning claim. The verdict binds only these plaintiffs. Lawyers on both sides will still read it as the first sign of how juries treat a Roundup case built without the label.

Monsanto went before Judge Timothy Boyer in the 22nd Judicial Circuit Court in St. Louis and asked him to give final approval to the $7.25 billion class settlement. The company argued that the deal is the only realistic way to bring the Roundup claims to an end. Lawyers opposing it argued that the people covered by the class are being pushed toward terms they had little say in.

The judge heard the arguments and did not rule from the bench. He had still not issued a decision as of October 30, 2026. The court can approve the settlement, change it, or refuse it.

Monsanto Co. v. Durnell, No. 24-1068, decided 7–2 after argument in April 2026. The $1.25 million St. Louis judgment for Mr. Durnell, who developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma after years of Roundup use, was reversed on FIFRA preemption grounds and sent back.

Bayer asked Judge Chhabria to dismiss the remaining federal cases. Its argument is that Durnell eliminates the theory the MDL was built on, and that what survives is a repackaged warning claim. Plaintiffs’ counsel oppose, arguing the decision is confined to labeling.

The court has divided the remaining federal cases into categories and is taking the question up category by category. Monsanto filed its first round of motions on September 1 and 2, covering the Category 1 cases governed by Florida law along with eight individual plaintiffs. Judge Chhabria hears argument on those on November 16, 2026. Arguments on Categories 3 and 4 follow on March 19, 2027. How the judge answers that question is the single biggest open item in the federal cases.

In a Massachusetts case, Judge Margaret Guzman described Durnell as relatively narrow and focused on the product label. She indicated it may leave room for state-law claims that rest on warnings a manufacturer could have given away from the label. The plaintiff was given until late August 2026 to amend. Early signals like this one are what will decide how much of the litigation survives.

The proposed settlement is King v. Monsanto, in the 22nd Judicial Circuit Court in St. Louis. Monsanto would pay up to $7.25 billion, in tiers, over roughly 21 years. It covers people in the United States exposed to Roundup and similar weed killers before February 17, 2026. That is a much wider group than the people with cases on file.

Preliminary approval came on March 4, 2026. The fairness hearing moved from July 9 to August 19, and then an August 6 order moved it to September 14, 2026, when it was held. The case nearly changed courts along the way. Objecting lawyers tried to have the settlement decided in federal court instead, and a federal appeals court turned that attempt away on August 27.

Registration and claim filing stay closed until the court grants final approval. The official notice site is WeedKillerClass.com.

Part of why the hearing kept moving is the opt-out problem. The settlement administrator has been working through claimants who opted out and then wanted back in, which is widely read as a response to Durnell. The extra time also let the parties argue over which opt-outs were valid in the first place.

The opt-out deadline was extended to August 21, 2026 and has now passed. Anyone who opted out and has since changed their mind is in the hands of their own lawyer and the court.

The IARC classified glyphosate as probably carcinogenic to humans in 2015. Bayer acquired Monsanto in 2018 and inherited the docket. The largest verdict, in the Pilliod case, was $2 billion before being cut to $87 million on appeal. Bayer has settled in waves while continuing to dispute the causation science and pressing the preemption defence that finally succeeded in Durnell.