Roundup Lawsuit Updates
Last updated: September 3, 2026
On June 25, 2026 the Supreme Court decided Monsanto Co. v. Durnell and held, 7–2, that FIFRA preempts state failure-to-warn claims built on an EPA-approved pesticide label. That removed the theory most Roundup cases had been pleaded on. It did not end the litigation, and what happens next turns on how narrowly courts read the decision.
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.
Where the Roundup Litigation Stands Now
The federal litigation, In re: Roundup Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2741, sits before Judge Vince Chhabria in the Northern District of California. Reported case counts put it between 3,920 and 3,930 pending actions in early August 2026, far smaller than it once was, because Bayer has settled in waves since 2020 and has said it has paid out well over $10 billion. Tens of thousands more claims sit in state courts, which is where most of the large verdicts have come from.
The centre of gravity right now is not a trial date. It is whether the MDL survives at all in its current form after Durnell.
Roundup claims have not stopped being filed. The Supreme Court narrowed one theory rather than closing the door, and deadlines still run on state law tied to diagnosis.
Check Whether You May QualifyWhat Durnell Did, and What It Left Alone
The Court held that FIFRA’s preemption clause — which bars states from imposing labeling requirements “in addition to or different from” federal ones — reaches a state tort duty that would have required a cancer warning EPA never mandated. Justice Kavanaugh wrote for the majority; Justices Gorsuch and Jackson dissented. Bates v. Dow Agrosciences was not overruled.
The holding is about labels. Claims that do not depend on what the label said — design defect, manufacturing defect, negligence, misrepresentation, advertising and promotional claims, and claims involving risks EPA never affirmatively considered — are not squarely covered by it. Whether those claims are genuinely independent or are warning claims in different clothing is now the argument in every Roundup case in the country. Fuller analysis sits on Monsanto v. Durnell: What the Supreme Court Held.
Recent Roundup Developments
Monsanto Co. v. Durnell, No. 24-1068, decided 7–2. The Missouri judgment for Mr. Durnell, who had won just over $1 million after decades of Roundup use, was reversed on FIFRA preemption grounds.
Bayer asked Judge Chhabria to dismiss the remaining federal cases, arguing that Durnell eliminates the theory the MDL was built on and that the surviving claims are repackaged warning claims. Plaintiffs’ counsel oppose, arguing the decision is confined to labeling.
In a Massachusetts case, Judge Margaret Guzman described Durnell as relatively narrow and focused on the product label, and indicated it may leave room for state-law claims resting on warnings a manufacturer could have given outside 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.
A proposed class settlement of roughly $7.25 billion covering existing federal claims remains in approval proceedings, structured in tiers. Bayer has said it would withdraw if participation falls short. The fairness hearing in the Missouri state court was moved from July 9 to August 19, 2026, and objections are still being reviewed.
The court granted both sides more time because the settlement administrator is working through claimants who had previously opted out of the settlement and now want to reverse that, which is widely read as a response to Durnell. The extra time also lets the parties argue over which opt-outs were valid in the first place. If you opted out and are reconsidering, this is a question for your own lawyer and it has a clock on it.
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.
The Proposed Class Settlement
The proposed settlement and the Supreme Court ruling pull against each other. The deal was negotiated when failure-to-warn claims still worked. It is now being weighed in a world where those claims are mostly blocked, which changes what joining it is worth on both sides. Anyone with a pending federal case should be discussing that specific question with their own counsel rather than reading general commentary about it.
A narrowed claim is not no claim
Durnell cut back one route, failure to warn. It did not end Roundup litigation, and it did not change any filing deadline. Whether a particular exposure and diagnosis still supports a case is a question about your facts, and the clock in your state runs the same as it did before.
What to watch from here
- How the federal judge rules on Bayer's push to throw out the remaining cases.
- Whether other courts read Durnell as narrowly as this one did.
- How state courts apply it to cases already filed there.
- Whether the design and negligence arguments survive on their own, without the labeling claim.
- How the proposed class settlement moves through approval.
- Any EPA action on glyphosate, which would change the legal picture.
- Whether Congress legislates on pesticide labeling.
A narrowed theory is not the same as no claim. Whether a particular exposure and diagnosis still supports a case after Durnell is a fact-specific question, and the filing deadlines in your state have not changed.
Start a Free Case ReviewHow This Updates Page Fits With the Main Roundup Page
The main Roundup Cancer Lawsuits page covers who the litigation involves, what is alleged, and how claims are evaluated. This page tracks docket movement and the fallout from Durnell, which is changing month to month. The science sits on Is Roundup Dangerous?, Roundup and Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma, and What Is Glyphosate?
Case counts, rulings, and settlement terms reported here reflect public reporting available on the date above and should be confirmed against the docket before being relied on.
Related Lawsuit Topics
Roundup Cancer Lawsuits
The main overview of who is involved and what is alleged.
Monsanto v. Durnell
What the Supreme Court held on FIFRA preemption, and what survives.
Roundup and Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma
The diagnosis at the centre of the litigation.
Is Roundup Dangerous?
What the research says about glyphosate and cancer risk.
Paraquat Parkinson’s Lawsuits
The other major pesticide litigation, and how it differs.
Mass Torts
How MDLs, bellwethers, and preemption defences actually work.
Find Out If You May Have a Case
If you or a family member used Roundup for years and were later diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma, a free case review can tell you two things. Whether that history still supports a claim after Durnell, and whether your state's deadline still allows one.
Free and no obligation. Lawsuit Center is not a law firm and submitting a request does not create an attorney-client relationship.
