Roundup Cancer Lawsuits: What To Expect in 2025
Editors carefully fact-check all Drugwatch.com content for accuracy and quality.
Drugwatch.com has a stringent fact-checking process. It starts with our strict sourcing guidelines.
We only gather information from credible sources. This includes peer-reviewed medical journals, reputable media outlets, government reports, court records and interviews with qualified experts.
With several key verdicts reached in 2024 and a potential Supreme Court trip looming, 2025 is set to be a major year for Roundup litigation.
More than 4,000 Roundup lawsuits remain unresolved in federal court. Yet, most of the action over the last year has taken place in state court, where individual cases have continued to go to trial.
Plaintiffs claim Roundup products containing glyphosate cause non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Bayer — which acquired Monsanto in 2018 — maintains the herbicide does not cause cancer. The juries’ verdicts have been inconsistent.
Plaintiffs have secured several sizable verdicts, but Bayer has also had its victories.
“Having achieved favorable outcomes in 15 of the last 22 trials, the company has a winning record in court and will continue to try cases, based on the overwhelming scientific and regulatory evidence in support of the safety of glyphosate,” Bayer said in a Jan. 3 statement.
The three most recent cases to go to trial have ended in a plaintiff win, a defendant win and a mistrial. These inconsistencies and the issue of federal preemption may be setting the stage for an eventual Supreme Court showdown.
Bayer Likely To Send Roundup Case to Supreme Court in 2025
Bayer has been upfront about its hopes to eventually have the Supreme Court decide the litigation.
The company has said that it will file a petition in 2025 for the court to review a Roundup case, meaning it could be decided during the 2025-26 session.
Federal preemption would be front and center.
Roundup lawsuits are often based on state failure to warn claims. The lawsuits claim that Monsanto ran afoul of state laws when it failed to warn of the risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma from using its products.
Bayer has argued that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) preempts those claims.
The company contends that state laws cannot require labeling beyond the scope of what is required by federal law and that, since the Environmental Protection Agency approved Roundup’s label without a cancer warning, lawsuits should not be able to rely on state laws as the basis of their argument.
Plaintiffs secured important wins when both the 9th and 11th Circuit Courts rejected this argument. But, in August, the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals created a circuit split when it sided with Bayer on the same issue.
Those differences in rulings have set the path for an eventual Supreme Court decision, which could have significant implications for plaintiffs.
“A Supreme Court affirmation of the Third Circuit’s holding would be disastrous for toxic tort plaintiffs,” a Harvard Law Review essay on the topic stated. “… if EPA approval is a complete defense against failure-to-warn claims, manufacturers will have little incentive to ensure the safety of their products.”
Despite Uncertainty of Roundup Litigation, Plaintiffs Earn Large Verdicts
While a Supreme Court decision may eventually impact Roundup litigation, individual cases will continue to go to trial in 2025.
A year ago, a jury awarded a staggering $2.25 billion verdict to plaintiff John McKivison after he developed cancer following decades of Roundup usage. A judge later reduced those damages to $400 million.
In October, a Philadelphia jury awarded $78 million to William Melissen, who had been using Roundup since 1992 before being diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma in 2020.
Plaintiffs appear to be having more success in cases where the exposure to Roundup was long-term. In the Womack trial, which Monsanto won in November, plaintiff Judith Womack had used Roundup for only four years before her diagnosis.
“To qualify [to file a Roundup lawsuit], one must have proof of significant exposure to Roundup, a cancer diagnosis linked to Roundup exposure (such as non-Hodgkin lymphoma), and a connection between the exposure and the diagnosis,” Jo Anna Pollock, a partner in Simmons Hanly Conroy’s Complex Litigation Department, told Drugwatch in a recent Q&A.
When asked where Roundup litigation is going in 2025, Pollock said, “Courts across the county will continue to hear evidence of a plaintiff’s exposure to Roundup and decide whether it caused their particular disease. Lawyers continue to accept new Roundup cases as the litigation continues.”