Bayer/Monsanto Roundup Lawsuits 2025/2026 - Compensation for Non Hodgkin Lymphoma Victims
Roundup Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma Compensation in 2025 and 2026
Despite an $11 Billion global settlement in 2020, individual Roundup Lawsuits continue to be filed on behalf of victims who used Roundup and other glyphosate-based products who later were diagnosed with Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma (NHL).
Statute of limitations do not apply until someone who used Roundup gets Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma. Due to latency (the time period between exposure to a carcinogen and diagnosis of a disease), there will unfortunately continue to be new diagnoses for the reasonable future. The latency period for Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma (NHL) linked to Roundup (glyphosate) exposure is generally considered to be at least 2 years, with some studies suggesting a longer window, potentially ranging from to 10-20 years.
If you used Roundup weedkiller at least 2 times per year for 2 years or more and were diagnosed with Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma within your state’s statute of limitations (generally within the last 2-3 years, see details below) at least 1 year after the first use, you may be eligible to file a claim against Bayer.
2-year Statute of Limitations States – AL, AK, AZ, CA, CO, DE, GA, HI, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, FL, NJ, NV, OH, OK, OR, PA, TX, VA, WV
3+ year Statute of Limitations States – AR, CT, D.C., MD, MA, ME, MI, MN, MO, MS, MT, ND, NE, NH, NM, NY, NC, RI, SC, SD, UT, VT, WA, WI, WY
Claims are being filed for individuals exposed to Roundup via residential use, commercial use, industrial use and agricultural use.
History of Roundup Litigation
Consumers across the country who experienced prolonged exposure to Roundup used at work or around their homes have been diagnosed with many of the following conditions:
Roundup Litigation took off in 2015 with the World Health Organization declaring glyphosate (Roundup’s active ingredient) as a “probable human carcinogen”.
In 2018, Bayer acquired Monsanto and the first major trial, Johnson v. Monsanto, resulted in a $289 million verdict for a California groundskeeper who developed non hodgkin lymphoma.
In 2019, a California jury awarded over $2 billion in Pilliod v. Monsanto, a major blow to Bayer.
In 2020, Bayer proposed and agreed to a $10 billion settlement which ballooned to $11 Billion to resolve many existing claims, but a federal judge rejected a plan for future cases, preserving individuals’ rights to sue.
As of May 2025, Monsanto has reached settlement agreements in nearly 100,000 Roundup lawsuits, paying approximately $11 billion. Bayer achieved this through large-scale block settlements with law firms handling high volumes of claims, along with pre-trial resolutions in individual cases.
Although these settlements account for approximately two-thirds of the total, Monsanto estimates that roughly 61,000 active Roundup lawsuits remain pending. Most of these cases are now in state courts across the country, though more than 4,000 remain consolidated in the federal MDL in California.
Roundup Products that We May Be Investigating
"Major Study Used by Monsanto/Bayer Defense Retracted by Editor Due to Ethics Concerns"
Roundup Products that We May Be Investigating
• Roundup
• Roundup Pro
• Ranger Pro Herbicide
• Roundup Extended Control
• Roundup ProMax
• Roundup Concentrate MAX Control
• Roundup Concentrate MAX Control 365
• Roundup Pro Concentrate
• Roundup QuikPro
• Roundup Ready-to-Use
• Roundup Ready-to-Use Max Control
• Roundup Ready-to-Use Extended Control
• Roundup Precision Gel
• Roundup For Lawns
• Roundup Ready-to-Use Poison Ivy
• Roundup Weed & Grass Killer
How much is a Roundup lawsuit worth?
In the 2020 settlement, most cases settled for well above $100,000 with many in the $250,000 range and above. There are numerous trials scheduled for early to mid 2026 and Bayer has been settling some of these cases pretrial for values exceeding $500,000 per case and sometimes well into the millions. It is expected that future settlement values will continue to be well into 6 figures.
Recent happenings in the Roundup Litigation
The biggest question mark in the Roundup litigation is that the Department of Justice with the current administration has asked the Supreme Court to take up a review of one of the cases arguing that federal preemption laws circumvent the right to sue for failure to warn due to the FDA controlling the warning labels.
In the past, the Supreme Court has failed to make any rulings on these cases, but if they do take it up, it should be taken into consideration that Bayer and Monsanto have not been forthcoming about the real dangers of their product and have actually gone to great lengths to cover up the risks including ghost writing studies and secretly paying for authorship to create a false appearance of independence. Due to these factors, one of the most cited studies used by the defense was recently retracted by its editors. See below:
Major Study Used by Monsanto/Bayer Defense Retracted by Editor Due to Ethics Concerns
As mentioned above, one of the most cited studies on the safety of Roundup (Safety Evaluation and Risk Assessment of the Herbicide Roundup and Its Active Ingredient, Glyphosate, for Humans) was recently retracted for Monsanto ghostwriting, other ethics problems.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273230099913715?via%3Dihub
Why was the study retracted? There are a multitude of reasons, but a few major ones are cited below taken directly from the retraction:
Lack of Authorial Independence – Litigation in the United States revealed correspondence from Monsanto suggesting that the authors of the article were not solely responsible for writing its content. It appears from that correspondence that employees of Monsanto may have contributed to the writing of the article without proper acknowledgment as co-authors. This lack of transparency raises serious ethical concerns regarding the independence and accountability of the authors of this article and the academic integrity of the carcinogenicity studies presented.
Misrepresentation of Contributions The apparent contributions of Monsanto employees as co-writers to this article were not explicitly mentioned as such in the acknowledgments section. This omission suggests that the authors may have misrepresented their unique roles and the collaborative nature of the work presented.
Questions of Financial Compensation Further correspondence with Monsanto disclosed during litigation indicates that the authors may have received financial compensation from Monsanto for their work on this article, which was not disclosed as such in this publication. The potential financial compensation raises significant ethical concerns and calls into question the apparent academic objectivity of the authors in this publication, which concerns and questions have not been answered.
Conclusion In light of the aforementioned issues, the handling (co) Editor-in-Chief lost confidence in the results and conclusions of this article, and believes that the retraction of this article is necessary to maintain the integrity of the journal. The scientific concerns regarding the lack of carcinogenicity only derived from Monsanto studies, concerns regarding (ghost-) authorship(s) and potential conflicts of interest, none of which have been responded to, are sufficient to warrant this action.
Did you or a loved one diagnosed with Non Hodgkin Lymphoma after exposure to a Bayer/Monsanto weedkiller containing glyphosate such as Roundup or Ranger Pro?
Find out if you may qualify for compensation
Find Out MoreConsumer Safety Watch offers safety advocate services and attorney referral services for patients throughout the United States including the states of Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming.
Consumer Safety Watch offers consumer safety advocate services or can help you find an attorney throughout the United States including the following cities: Albuquerque, NM; Arlington, TX; Atlanta, GA; Austin, TX; Baltimore, MD; Boston, MA; Charlotte, NC; Chicago, IL; Cleveland, OH; Colorado Springs, CO; Columbus, OH; Dallas, TX; Denver, CO; Detroit, MI; Fresno, CA; Fort Worth, TX; Indianapolis, IN; Honolulu, HI; Houston, TX; Jacksonville, FL; Kansas City, KS; Kansas City, MO; Las Vegas, NV; Long Beach, CA; Los Angeles, CA; Louisville, KY; Memphis, TN; Mesa, AZ; Miami, FL; Miami, OH; Milwaukee, WI; Minneapolis, MN; Nashville, TN; New York City, NY; Oakland, CA; Oklahoma City, OK; Omaha, NE; Philadelphia, PA; Phoenix, AZ; Pittsburgh, PA; Portland, OR; Sacramento, CA; San Antonio, Tx; San Diego, CA; San Francisco, CA; San Jose, CA; Seattle, WA; St. Louis, MO; Tampa, FL; Tucson, AZ; Tulsa, Virginia Beach, VA; Washington, DC; Wichita, KS.
This website is not affiliated with any pharmaceutical or medical device company or any trademarked product. Results are not guaranteed. This website provides a free matching service and is not responsible for information or services from third party providers. Consumer Safety Watch is not a law firm. Every case is different and services available can vary.