Lead: Bayer and attorneys for people diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma announced a proposed $7.25 billion settlement on Tuesday to resolve thousands of U.S. lawsuits alleging the company failed to warn consumers that the weedkiller Roundup can cause cancer. The filing was made in St. Louis Circuit Court in Missouri, where many suits have been brought. The proposal arrives as the U.S. Supreme Court prepares to hear arguments in April over whether federal pesticide approvals preempt state failure-to-warn claims. The settlement would not alter that Supreme Court case but would reduce Bayer’s exposure and ensure some payments to claimants regardless of the high court’s eventual ruling.
Key Takeaways
- Bayer filed a proposed nationwide settlement worth up to $7.25 billion to resolve Roundup-related claims; payments would be made over as much as 21 years.
- About 200,000 Roundup-related claims have been made against Bayer; the settlement documents state more than 125,000 plaintiffs sued since 2015.
- Past jury outcomes include 13 verdicts favoring Bayer and 11 for plaintiffs, including a $2.1 billion jury award in Georgia last year.
- Two prior settlement rounds addressed roughly 77,000 claims, leaving the new proposal aimed at most remaining and future cases involving exposure before the filing date.
- Individual awards would vary by exposure type, age at diagnosis and disease severity — for example, an agricultural worker diagnosed under age 60 with aggressive disease would average about $165,000.
- Residential users diagnosed at ages 60–77 with less aggressive disease would average about $20,000, while diagnoses at 78+ average about $10,000.
- Bayer, which acquired Monsanto in 2018, disputes that glyphosate causes non-Hodgkin lymphoma but says litigation costs have threatened U.S. sales of some Roundup products.
Background
Bayer acquired Monsanto, the maker of Roundup, in 2018 and has since confronted mounting litigation alleging that Roundup’s active ingredient, glyphosate, can cause non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Plaintiffs have brought claims in state courts asserting that Bayer failed to provide adequate cancer warnings on product labels. Federal regulators, including the EPA, have found glyphosate not likely to be carcinogenic to humans when used as directed, and the product’s federal label does not carry a cancer warning.
The legal fight escalated after several high-profile jury verdicts and large awards to plaintiffs, alongside a mix of defense wins. To limit exposure, Bayer has previously reached separate settlements covering many claims; the company also stopped selling glyphosate-based Roundup in the U.S. residential lawn and garden market while continuing agricultural products. Parallel to litigation, Bayer has lobbied for state-level laws and faced petitions at the federal level about whether federal approval preempts state failure-to-warn suits.
Main Event
On Tuesday in Jefferson City, Missouri, Bayer and counsel for plaintiffs filed a proposed settlement in St. Louis Circuit Court that would create a special fund with annual payments for up to 21 years, capped at $7.25 billion. The settlement is intended to resolve most pending and future claims tied to exposures that occurred before the filing date; a provision allows Bayer to cancel the deal if an unspecified threshold of plaintiffs opt out.
Settlement payouts would be tiered. According to the filing, an agricultural, industrial or turf worker exposed over a long period who is diagnosed before age 60 with an aggressive form of non-Hodgkin lymphoma would average roughly $165,000. Residential users diagnosed between ages 60 and 77 with less aggressive disease would average about $20,000, while those diagnosed at 78-plus would average about $10,000.
Bayer’s CEO Bill Anderson described the deal as giving the company “a road to closure,” saying years of litigation uncertainty had weighed on the business. Plaintiff attorneys expressed mixed reactions: some characterized the agreement as meaningful access to compensation for current and future claimants, while other lawyers representing groups of plaintiffs said the proposed averages were too low and predicted many clients might opt out to pursue individual cases.
Analysis & Implications
The proposed settlement would shift substantial litigation risk off Bayer’s balance sheet and provide predictable, if not uniform, compensation to thousands of claimants. For plaintiffs, a certified settlement could speed payments and avoid years of individual trials, but many will weigh the certainty of a defined payout against the possibility of a larger jury award in individual cases. The tiered structure balances exposure patterns: long-term occupational exposure yields higher average awards than brief residential use.
For Bayer, the deal reduces the tail risk of an adverse U.S. outcome and tempers the financial shock of additional large verdicts while the company pursues preemption arguments before the Supreme Court. That high-court appeal, scheduled for argument in April, asks whether EPA approval of Roundup’s federal label preempts state law failure-to-warn claims; the settlement does not resolve that legal question but narrows Bayer’s immediate exposure.
Market and regulatory effects could follow. Bayer has already curtailed Roundup’s residential sales in the U.S., and continued litigation or adverse rulings could prompt additional product changes or restrictions in agricultural channels. State legislative efforts to shield pesticide makers when products comply with federal labels — laws enacted recently in North Dakota and Georgia — are part of a broader strategy to limit similar suits going forward.
Comparison & Data
| Item | Count / Average |
|---|---|
| Proposed settlement cap | $7.25 billion |
| Payment term | Up to 21 years |
| Estimated Roundup-related claims | About 200,000 |
| Plaintiffs who sued since 2015 | More than 125,000 |
| Past jury verdicts | 13 for Bayer, 11 for plaintiffs |
| Notable verdict | $2.1 billion (Georgia jury) |
| Typical award examples | $165,000 (agricultural, <60, aggressive); $20,000 (residential, 60–77, less aggressive); $10,000 (78+) |
The table summarizes figures from the court filing and prior verdicts. Those numbers help frame how the settlement would distribute compensation among deeply exposed occupational claimants versus residential users with limited exposure.
Reactions & Quotes
“Litigation uncertainty has plagued the company for years, and this settlement gives the company a road to closure.”
Bill Anderson, Bayer CEO
Anderson framed the deal as a way to resolve long-running legal distraction and financial unpredictability for Bayer’s crop-science operations based in St. Louis.
“No settlement can erase a diagnosis, but this agreement is designed to ensure that both today’s and tomorrow’s patients have access to meaningful compensation.”
Christopher Seeger, plaintiffs’ attorney
Seeger, who would represent claimants under the settlement, emphasized access and predictability for current and future patients while acknowledging compensation cannot reverse health harms.
“The proposed payouts are exceedingly too small.”
Matt Clement, plaintiffs’ attorney
Clement, representing about 280 plaintiffs, said many clients may reject the deal and pursue individual litigation, signaling potential opt-outs that could complicate final approval.
Unconfirmed
- The precise threshold of plaintiff opt-outs that would allow Bayer to cancel the settlement has not been disclosed in the filing.
- How many individual plaintiffs will accept the settlement rather than opt out and pursue individual trials remains uncertain and could affect the deal’s final scope.
- Long-term market consequences for glyphosate-based agricultural products depend on future regulatory actions and the Supreme Court’s ruling, which are not settled.
Bottom Line
The proposed $7.25 billion settlement represents a major step toward resolving lengthy and costly litigation over Roundup and glyphosate exposure, offering predictability for both claimants and Bayer. It provides a structured compensation framework that favors higher awards for prolonged occupational exposure and smaller awards for limited residential exposure, but the averages may not satisfy all plaintiffs and could prompt opt-outs and additional trials.
The settlement reduces immediate financial uncertainty for Bayer ahead of a pivotal Supreme Court appeal, but it does not settle the legal question of federal preemption that could reshape future pesticide litigation. Observers should watch court approval votes, the number of opt-outs, and the April Supreme Court arguments for how the broader legal landscape will evolve.