Key facts
- The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in favor of Bayer in a case concerning Roundup weedkiller.
- The ruling limits lawsuits claiming Roundup causes cancer by preempting state-level failure-to-warn claims.
- The court found that federal law, specifically EPA authority over pesticide labels, overrides state laws requiring warnings not mandated by the EPA.
- Bayer is facing approximately 65,000 claims over Roundup, with a proposed $7.25 billion settlement aimed at resolving most of them.
- The Supreme Court's decision does not alter the terms of Bayer's proposed settlement.
The U.S. Supreme Court has sided with Bayer, which owns the former Monsanto company, in a significant ruling that could limit thousands of lawsuits alleging its Roundup weedkiller causes cancer. In a 7-2 decision, the justices overturned a Missouri jury's $1.25 million verdict for John Durnell, who claimed exposure to glyphosate in Roundup led to his non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
The court agreed with Bayer's argument that plaintiffs cannot claim the company violated U.S. state laws by failing to warn about cancer risks because the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has found no such risk and does not require such a warning on the product's label. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, writing for the majority, stated that federal law, specifically the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), preempts state-law failure-to-warn claims when the EPA has determined that no warning is necessary.
Bayer faces approximately 65,000 claims over Roundup in U.S. courts, with plaintiffs alleging they developed cancer after using the weedkiller. The company maintains that decades of studies show Roundup and its active ingredient, glyphosate, are safe for human use. The EPA has previously stated that glyphosate is "unlikely" to be carcinogenic.
While this ruling eliminates one type of claim—failure-to-warn—from most lawsuits, other claims, such as negligence and misrepresentation in marketing, can still proceed. Bayer announced in February a $7.25 billion settlement aimed at resolving most of the remaining lawsuits and potential future claims. The company stated that the Supreme Court's decision does not alter the terms of this proposed settlement.