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?

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.

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, and the trial is expected to run four to five weeks. All three plaintiffs turned down the $7.25 billion class settlement rather than join it.

Durnell blocks claims built on the product label. So the plaintiffs are trying the case on design defect, the argument that the weed killer itself was unreasonably dangerous to use. This is the first test of whether a Roundup case can win a jury on that theory alone. A verdict binds only these plaintiffs. Lawyers on both sides will still read it as the first sign of how juries treat a design-only Roundup case.

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 12, 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.