Roundup Lawsuits After the Supreme Court: Your Case Is Not Over
You used Roundup for years. You sprayed it on your yard, your farm, your property, your jobsite. Then you were diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and someone told you there was a lawsuit. Maybe you signed up. Maybe you have a claim pending. Maybe you have been waiting for years, watching from the sidelines, hearing about verdicts and settlements. And now you just heard the news: the United States Supreme Court ruled against Roundup plaintiffs. You are reading this at 2 a.m. because you think your case is dead. We need you to hear this clearly before you read another word: it is not.
The Supreme Court’s 7-2 decision blocked one legal theory — the failure-to-warn claim that said Monsanto should have put a cancer warning on the Roundup label. That theory was the engine that drove most of the headline verdicts. But it was never the only theory. Design-defect claims, fraudulent-concealment claims, and negligent-testing claims survived. A bipartisan amendment introduced in Congress the same week the ruling came down could rewrite the law and restore the failure-to-warn theory entirely. And Bayer’s $7.25 billion settlement — the one offering some claimants as little as $6,000 for a cancer diagnosis — is not a gift. It is a trap designed to close your case cheaply before you understand what it is actually worth.
We are writing this for one person: you. The person with non-Hodgkin lymphoma who used Roundup and does not know whether to take the settlement check, opt out, or walk away. We are Attorney911 — The Manginello Law Firm. We handle toxic tort claims and catastrophic injury cases. We are not your counsel on this specific matter unless you call us and we take it. But we are going to tell you, in plain English, exactly where this litigation stands, what your case is worth, what the settlement does, and what you should do next — because the most dangerous moment in any mass tort is the one where a scared plaintiff accepts a fraction of what their case is worth because they think the law just took everything away.
The Supreme Court’s 7-2 FIFRA Ruling: What It Actually Did
In late June 2026, the Supreme Court issued a 7-2 decision in Monsanto Company v. Durnell holding that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act — FIFRA, the federal law that governs how pesticides are registered, labeled, and sold in the United States — preempts state-law failure-to-warn claims against Roundup’s manufacturer. The reasoning is specific and narrow, even though the impact is broad. Under FIFRA, states are prohibited from imposing labeling requirements that differ from or add to those mandated under the federal scheme. The Environmental Protection Agency reviewed Roundup’s label and approved it without a cancer warning. The Supreme Court held that because the federal government approved that label, a state court jury cannot be told that Monsanto should have added a cancer warning that the EPA did not require. The federal label approval, the majority ruled, overrides the state law that would have imposed a different warning duty.
That is what the decision did. Now here is what it did not do. It did not say Roundup is safe. It did not say glyphosate does not cause cancer. It did not say Monsanto did nothing wrong. It did not dismiss your lawsuit. It did not eliminate every legal theory available to you. It blocked one road — the road that said “the label should have warned me.” Other roads remain open.
The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified glyphosate as a Group 2A “probable human carcinogen” in 2015, creating a regulatory-science conflict that plaintiffs have leveraged at trial.
That classification has not been rescinded. The science that connects glyphosate exposure to non-Hodgkin lymphoma has not been overturned by the Supreme Court. What the Court ruled on was a legal question about federal versus state authority over pesticide labels — not a scientific question about whether the product causes cancer. The distinction matters because it tells you exactly where the fight moves next.
What the Ruling Did NOT Kill: Surviving Theories That Can Still Win
The failure-to-warn theory was the primary engine of Roundup verdicts, but it was never the only path to accountability. Three additional theories of liability survived the Supreme Court’s preemption ruling, and each one attacks a different part of Monsanto’s conduct — not the EPA-approved label.
Design Defect. A design-defect claim does not challenge what the label said. It challenges what the product is. The theory is that Roundup’s formulation — its chemical composition, the way glyphosate is combined with surfactants that increase absorption — is inherently dangerous in a way a safer alternative design could have avoided. This theory may survive FIFRA preemption because it attacks the product’s composition rather than its labeling. It faces real challenges on general causation and regulatory-defense grounds, but the preemption door is not closed on it. A jury can still be asked whether the product itself was unreasonably dangerous, separate and apart from whether the label should have carried a cancer warning.
Fraudulent Concealment and Misrepresentation. This is the theory that Monsanto did not just fail to warn — it actively suppressed evidence of cancer risk, ghostwrote scientific studies to create the appearance of independent safety findings, and promoted misleading safety narratives to regulators, scientists, and the public. This theory targets off-label communications — what the company said and did outside the four corners of the EPA-approved label — and therefore may not be preempted at all. The internal Monsanto documents already produced in prior Roundup trials are the evidence engine for this theory. Emails discussing the ghostwriting of studies, internal debates about glyphosate’s carcinogenicity, and strategic communications with regulators are largely public from prior litigation. A fraudulent-concealment case built on those documents does not ask the jury to second-guess the EPA’s label decision. It asks the jury to punish the company for lying about what it knew.
Negligent Testing and Research. This theory alleges that Monsanto failed to adequately test glyphosate’s carcinogenic potential, manipulated the scientific literature, and conducted inadequate long-term studies. Like the fraudulent-concealment theory, it targets the company’s conduct — what it did in the laboratory and in the scientific literature — rather than the content of the EPA-approved label. It may survive preemption for the same reason: it attacks conduct, not labeling.
Here is the takeaway that the generalist misses and the specialist does not: the Supreme Court took away the easiest road, but it did not take away every road. The cases that survive and win post-SCOTUS will be the ones built on corporate-conduct evidence — the Monsanto internal emails, the ghostwriting allegations, the regulatory-submission history — not on a simple “the label should have warned me” theory. That is a harder case to build. It requires the document trove from prior discovery, expert witnesses in toxicology and regulatory science, and a corporate-accountability narrative that connects the defendant’s choices to the plaintiff’s cancer. But it is a case that can still be won.
The Congressional Amendment: A Bipartisan Fix That Could Change Everything
The same week the Supreme Court ruling came down, a bipartisan amendment was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives that would alter FIFRA to preserve state-law failure-to-warn claims notwithstanding EPA label approval. The amendment was introduced by Democratic Representative Chellie Pingree and Republican Representative Thomas Massie — a bipartisan pairing that suggests this is not a partisan fight but a question of whether people who were harmed by a product can sue the company that made it.
If enacted, the amendment would effectively override the Supreme Court’s decision. It would restore the failure-to-warn theory as a viable claim, substantially restoring pre-SCOTUS case values. The cases that look diminished today could look very different in six months if this amendment becomes law.
Here is what we cannot promise you: we cannot tell you whether the amendment will pass. We cannot tell you when. We cannot tell you what the final language will look like. What we can tell you is that the introduction of this amendment creates a strategic consideration for every Roundup claimant. If you accept a $6,000 settlement payment now and the amendment passes six months from now, you will have traded away a case that could have been restored to full value. If you opt out of the settlement and the amendment fails, you are left with a case built on surviving theories that are harder to prove but still viable. That is the decision calculus, and it is one that no one should make without understanding exactly what their individual case is worth on both sides of the equation.
Bayer’s $7.25 Billion Settlement: What It Pays, What It Hides, and Why Objectors Are Fighting It
Bayer engineered a $7.25 billion settlement designed to resolve both current and future Roundup lawsuits. The deal is working through the approval process in Missouri state court — a venue with historical significance for this litigation because Monsanto’s former headquarters was in St. Louis, and the concentration of Roundup discovery and trial activity in that state created a favorable procedural and evidentiary infrastructure. The settlement has faced notable criticism from some plaintiffs and law firms over claims that it does not provide enough compensation to people who were impacted. Under the terms of the deal, some claimants could walk away with as little as $6,000.
Let us put that number in context. Non-Hodgkin lymphoma is a cancer of the lymphatic system. Treatment frequently involves multi-agent chemotherapy regimens such as R-CHOP — rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone — sometimes combined with radiation therapy, immunotherapy, and in relapsed cases, stem-cell transplantation. Medical expenses for advanced-stage disease with relapse frequently exceed $500,000 to $1 million or more. That is before lost wages, before diminished earning capacity, before the physical pain of treatment, before the emotional toll of a cancer diagnosis, before the years of surveillance and follow-up care, before the risk of recurrence. A $6,000 payment for that injury is not a settlement. It is a rounding error.
The settlement is also in the midst of a venue battle. Some objectors pushed to move the approval process to federal court, where it would be much more likely to fail. As of mid-June 2026, the settlement was sent back to state court — a blow for the objectors who wanted federal oversight. An approval hearing was scheduled for early the following month but is expected to be postponed. The opt-out deadline — the date by which a claimant must affirmatively exclude themselves from the settlement class or be bound by its terms — has been approaching and may have already passed for some claimants, though postponement of the approval hearing could affect that timeline.
This is where the decision becomes urgent. If you are in the settlement class and the deadline has not passed, you have a window to opt out. If you opt out, you preserve your right to pursue individual litigation on the surviving theories. If you stay in the class, you accept whatever the settlement matrix assigns you — potentially $6,000 for a case that, with documented heavy exposure and confirmed NHL, could be worth vastly more on an individual basis. Every claimant should have their case evaluated individually against the settlement matrix before committing to any decision. Settlement opt-out cases should be evaluated individually, not assumed to fit class averages.
The $2.1 Billion Georgia Verdict: What It Proves About Individual Cases
In 2025, before the Supreme Court’s FIFRA ruling, a Georgia jury returned a $2.1 billion verdict for a man who developed cancer after exposure to Roundup. That verdict demonstrates something critical: when individual cases with strong causation evidence and compelling corporate-conduct evidence reach a jury, the outcome can be extraordinary. The Georgia jury pool reflected a community willing to hold a corporation accountable, and the plaintiff’s case was strong enough to command a number that exceeds what most class settlements could ever approach.
But we need to be honest about what that verdict means today. The $2.1 billion verdict was likely driven in significant part by the failure-to-warn theory that the Supreme Court has now blocked. Whether that verdict survives appeal in light of the new preemption ruling is an open question. We cannot tell you it will stand. We can tell you what it proves: that juries, when they hear the full story of a plaintiff’s exposure and a corporation’s conduct, are capable of returning verdicts that reflect the true value of a cancer case. The ceiling for individual opt-out cases on surviving claims — design defect, fraudulent concealment — with strong exposure documentation and compelling corporate-conduct evidence can still reach $50 million or more. The $2.1 billion figure represents the extraordinary upper end of pre-SCOTUS verdicts. Post-SCOTUS, the ceiling is lower, but it is not zero.
Past results depend on the facts of each case and do not guarantee future outcomes. The Georgia verdict is a data point, not a promise. But it is a data point that tells you what is possible when a case is built right and a jury is given the chance to do its job.
The Bayer-Monsanto Shell: Who You Are Really Suing
The corporate structure behind Roundup is a two-layer defendant system that every claimant should understand. Monsanto Company is the original manufacturer and developer of Roundup. Monsanto designed, tested, marketed, and distributed the product for decades. Monsanto produced the internal research on glyphosate carcinogenicity. Monsanto controlled the labeling decisions submitted to the EPA. The internal documents that support fraudulent-concealment and punitive-damages theories are Monsanto’s documents.
Bayer AG is the German pharmaceutical and life-sciences giant that acquired Monsanto in 2018 and assumed the Roundup litigation liability. Bayer engineered the $7.25 billion settlement. Bayer is responsible for post-acquisition product safety decisions and litigation strategy. Bayer is the deep pocket — the multinational corporation with the balance sheet to absorb a multi-billion-dollar settlement and still keep fighting the cases that opt out.
When you file a Roundup lawsuit, both entities are typically named. The operating entity — Monsanto — is where the conduct happened. The parent entity — Bayer — is where the money sits. The corporate structure is not complicated in the way a shell-game LLC structure can be, but it matters because the two entities have different relationships to the evidence, the regulatory history, and the settlement. Monsanto’s internal documents are the case. Bayer’s balance sheet is the recovery.
As of mid-2026, the Roundup MDL — MDL-2741, In Re: Roundup Products Liability Litigation — had approximately 3,900 actions pending in the Northern District of California before Judge Vince Chhabria. That number has declined as cases have resolved through settlement or individual resolution, but it represents the federal consolidated docket. Many additional cases are filed in state courts across the country, with Missouri serving as a significant venue for the settlement approval proceedings and individual state-court cases.
Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma: The Injury, the Treatment, the Lifetime Cost
Non-Hodgkin lymphoma is not one disease. It is a family of cancers that originate in the lymphatic system — the body’s network of lymph nodes, spleen, thymus, and bone marrow that produces and transports white blood cells. The subtype you have matters enormously to your treatment, your prognosis, and your case value.
The most common aggressive subtype is diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, which requires immediate treatment with multi-agent chemotherapy. The standard regimen — R-CHOP — combines five drugs administered in cycles over several months, frequently alongside radiation therapy and sometimes followed by immunotherapy or stem-cell transplantation for patients who relapse. Indolent subtypes like follicular lymphoma may progress more slowly but are typically not curable, requiring intermittent treatment over a lifetime. Each subtype carries a different treatment cost, a different prognosis, and a different causation analysis — and the subtype should be documented precisely in the medical record because it affects both the damages calculation and the expert causation testimony.
The economic damages in a serious NHL case are staggering. First-line treatment alone can cost $100,000 to $300,000 or more depending on the regimen and the need for hospitalization. A relapse requiring stem-cell transplantation can push total medical expenses past $500,000 to $1 million or more. Future medical surveillance — CT scans, blood work, oncology follow-up — continues for years or decades. Lost wages during treatment are immediate. Diminished earning capacity is long-term, particularly for patients whose cognitive function is affected by chemotherapy — what oncologists call “chemo brain.” For families who lost a loved one to NHL, wrongful death claims carry a separate damages framework that includes the loss of the person’s future financial support, the loss of their household services, and the loss of the relationship itself.
Non-economic damages — physical pain, emotional distress, the loss of quality of life, the psychological toll of a cancer diagnosis and treatment regimen — are real and compensable. In Missouri, where the settlement approval is pending, product liability actions are not subject to statutory caps on non-economic damages, making it a favorable forum for catastrophic-injury claims. Other states vary. Your recovery framework — comparative-fault rules, damages-cap rules, wrongful-death versus survival damage splits — will depend on the state where your claim is filed and your domicile.
Punitive damages remain a live issue where evidence of corporate knowledge of cancer risk and alleged suppression of unfavorable research can be established. The Monsanto internal documents already produced in prior Roundup trials — emails discussing ghostwritten studies, internal safety debates, regulatory correspondence — are the foundation for a punitive-damages argument that the company knew of the risk and chose to suppress it. Whether a jury hears that evidence depends on which theory your case is built on and whether that theory survives preemption challenges.
What Your Roundup Case Is Actually Worth After the Supreme Court
Let us talk about money honestly, because that is what you need to know. The case-value range for a Roundup NHL claim after the Supreme Court’s ruling spans an enormous spectrum, and where your case falls depends on factors that are specific to you.
The settlement floor: $6,000. That is what some claimants in the $7.25 billion settlement could receive. It is the minimum the settlement matrix assigns to minimal-exposure claimants. If you used Roundup a few times in your backyard and developed NHL, and the settlement matrix assigns you to the lowest exposure tier, $6,000 may be what the class settlement offers. For a claimant with minimal documented exposure and a diagnosis that may or may not be connected to that exposure, the settlement may be the best available outcome.
The individual opt-out range: For a claimant with documented heavy exposure — years of regular use in agriculture, landscaping, groundskeeping, or another occupation involving frequent direct contact with Roundup — and a confirmed NHL diagnosis, the individual litigation value on surviving claims can be substantial. With strong exposure documentation, a compelling corporate-conduct narrative built on the Monsanto internal documents, and a favorable venue, individual opt-out cases can reach $50 million or more. The $2.1 billion Georgia verdict, while pre-SCOTUS and of uncertain post-appeal status, demonstrates that juries in plaintiff-friendly jurisdictions can return massive awards when the evidence is strong.
The post-SCOTUS adjustment: The Supreme Court’s FIFRA preemption decision significantly devalues the failure-to-warn theory that drove many of the largest verdicts. Post-SCOTUS, individual case value depends heavily on whether design-defect or fraudulent-concealment theories survive preemption challenges in the plaintiff’s specific venue, the strength of exposure documentation, the NHL subtype and prognosis, and the venue. A case that would have been worth $80 million on a failure-to-warn theory pre-SCOTUS might be worth $20 million on a fraudulent-concealment theory post-SCOTUS — still a life-changing number, but a fraction of what it was.
The congressional amendment variable: If the Pingree-Massie amendment passes and restores the failure-to-warn theory, case values could substantially return to pre-SCOTUS levels. This is the single largest variable in the valuation equation, and it is why no claimant should make an irrevocable settlement decision without understanding the amendment’s status.
Here is the bottom line on value: your case is worth what a jury in your venue would award on the strongest surviving theory, discounted by the probability of preemption challenges, the strength of your exposure evidence, the severity of your NHL, and the defendant’s litigation leverage. The settlement matrix does not calculate your case’s value — it calculates what Bayer is willing to pay to make your case go away. Those are two very different numbers.
The Evidence Clock: Proof That Disappears While You Wait
Every mass tort case has an evidence clock — records that exist now but will not exist forever. In the Roundup litigation, the evidence categories fall into two groups: the records that are stable and the records that are dying.
The stable records. Medical records documenting your NHL diagnosis, subtype, treatment history, and prognosis are retained under HIPAA and state record-retention rules. They are stable — but earlier records can be lost in provider mergers or practice closures, so the full treatment record should be requested early. Internal Monsanto and Bayer corporate documents obtained through prior discovery — ghostwritten studies, internal safety debates, regulatory correspondence — are largely available from prior trials and will not disappear. EPA registration files, FIFRA label approval correspondence, and regulatory submissions for glyphosate are federal records retained permanently. The IARC monograph and supporting scientific literature on glyphosate carcinogenicity are published and permanently available. These records are the foundation of the corporate-conduct case, and they are not going anywhere.
The dying records. Documentation of your Roundup exposure history is the single most contested element in any individual case, and it is the element that is most perishable. Purchase receipts degrade. Product containers are discarded. Memories fade. Witnesses relocate. Employment records for agricultural and landscaping workers — some of the most heavily exposed individuals — can be lost when employers go out of business, merge, or destroy records on routine retention schedules. Every month that passes without documenting your exposure history makes the dose-response reconstruction that your case depends on exponentially harder. This is the clock that matters most, and it is already running.
The preservation letter — the written demand that evidence be frozen before it can be legally destroyed — is the single most important early step in any individual case. It goes to every entity that holds evidence relevant to your claim: the manufacturer, the employer who required you to use Roundup, the retailer who sold it, any third party whose records document your exposure. The letter creates a legal duty to preserve evidence that, if violated, can support an adverse-inference instruction — telling the jury they may assume the lost evidence was as damaging as you say it was.
If you have not documented your Roundup exposure history — when you used it, how often, how much, for how many years, in what concentration, through what route (spraying, mixing, loading) — that documentation should be assembled now. Not next month. Not after the settlement hearing. Now. Because the evidence that connects your cancer to this product is the evidence that is dying the fastest.
How Bayer’s Settlement Machine Works — and How to Beat It
Bayer’s litigation strategy is not a mystery. It is a machine designed to resolve tens of thousands of cases at the lowest possible aggregate cost. Understanding how that machine works is the first step to beating it. Here are the plays, and here is how each one is countered.
Play 1: Use the Supreme Court ruling to drive down expectations. The moment the 7-2 decision came down, the message to every claimant became: your case is over, take what you can get. That message is designed to push you toward the settlement at the lowest matrix payout. Counter: The ruling blocked one theory. Design defect, fraudulent concealment, and negligent testing survive. Your case is not over — it is harder, and it is worth less than it was pre-SCOTUS, but it is not zero. A lawyer who understands the surviving theories can evaluate what your case is actually worth, not what the settlement machine wants you to believe it is worth.
Play 2: Structure the settlement with a $6,000 floor that captures the most vulnerable claimants. A claimant who is scared, who does not have a lawyer, who does not understand the surviving theories, and who needs money now is the claimant who takes $6,000 for a cancer diagnosis. That claimant is the settlement’s best outcome — for Bayer. Counter: Individualized case evaluation. Each case must be evaluated on its own exposure evidence, diagnosis severity, and venue against the settlement matrix. A claimant with documented heavy exposure and confirmed NHL should obtain individualized case evaluation before committing to any settlement participation or opt-out decision. Do not assume your case fits the class average.
Play 3: Push the settlement through Missouri state court where approval is more likely. Missouri’s historical role as a litigation hub for Monsanto, its favorable procedural rules, and its jury pool familiar with corporate-agricultural industry practices make it a favorable forum for settlement approval. Objectors tried to move the approval process to federal court where it would be more likely to fail, but as of June 2026 the settlement was sent back to state court. Counter: The opt-out. If you do not want to be bound by the settlement terms, you must affirmatively exclude yourself before the deadline. The opt-out preserves your right to pursue individual litigation on the surviving theories.
Play 4: Make the opt-out decision confusing and time-pressured. The opt-out deadline has been approaching, the approval hearing has been expected to be postponed, and the procedural status of the settlement has been in flux. This confusion benefits the settlement — claimants who cannot figure out what to do tend to do nothing, and doing nothing usually means staying in the class. Counter: Get a lawyer. The opt-out deadline and the settlement-approval timeline create time-sensitive decision points. A lawyer who handles toxic tort cases can evaluate your individual case, track the settlement proceedings, and advise you on whether to opt out or participate — before the deadline passes.
Play 5: Argue that the SCOTUS ruling makes individual cases too expensive to pursue. The surviving theories require more expert witnesses, more document review, and more litigation investment than a simple failure-to-warn claim. Bayer’s calculus is that most opt-out claimants will not have the resources or the representation to build a surviving-theory case. Counter: Contingency-fee representation. We do not get paid unless we win your case. The cost of building the case — experts, document review, depositions — is advanced by the firm, not by you. The defendant’s calculation that you cannot afford to fight is the calculation a contingency-fee lawyer exists to defeat.
The Proof Story: Building a Case That Survives Preemption
A Roundup case that survives the Supreme Court’s preemption ruling is not built the same way a pre-SCOTUS case was built. The pre-SCOTUS case was relatively straightforward: you used Roundup, the label did not warn you about cancer, you got non-Hodgkin lymphoma, the IARC classified glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen, and a jury connected the dots. That road is closed. The post-SCOTUS case requires a different architecture.
Step 1: Exposure reconstruction. The foundation of every individual Roundup case is the dose-response relationship between the plaintiff’s exposure and their cancer. This is the single most contested element, and it is built from purchase receipts, product containers, usage logs, witness statements, employment records for agricultural and landscaping workers, and any other documentation that establishes how much Roundup you used, how often, and for how long. The defense will argue that your exposure was minimal, that you cannot prove dose, and that your NHL was idiopathic — meaning it came from nowhere, not from Roundup. The counter is the exposure record, built early, documented thoroughly, and supported by expert dose-reconstruction testimony.
Step 2: Medical documentation. Your NHL diagnosis, subtype, treatment history, and prognosis must be documented from the medical record. The subtype — diffuse large B-cell, follicular, mantle cell, or another variant — affects both treatment costs and the causation analysis. Your treating oncologist’s records are the spine of the damages case. The defense will argue your cancer was caused by something else — age, genetics, other environmental exposures, immunosuppression. The counter is the medical record combined with the exposure record and expert testimony from a hematologist-oncologist on specific causation.
Step 3: General causation. A toxicologist or epidemiologist must testify that glyphosate exposure can cause non-Hodgkin lymphoma in humans. The IARC’s Group 2A classification — “probable human carcinogen” — is the scientific anchor. The defense will counter with the EPA’s position that glyphosate is “not likely” to be carcinogenic to humans, creating a regulatory-science conflict that the jury must resolve. The plaintiff’s expert must walk the jury through the epidemiology, the mechanistic evidence, and the reason the IARC and EPA reached different conclusions.
Step 4: Corporate-conduct evidence. This is where the post-SCOTUS case diverges from the pre-SCOTUS case. The Monsanto internal documents already produced in prior Roundup trials — emails discussing ghostwritten studies, internal safety debates, regulatory correspondence — are the evidence engine for the surviving theories. A regulatory expert on the FIFRA and EPA framework explains what the company told the regulator and what it did not. The corporate-conduct narrative supports both the fraudulent-concealment theory and the punitive-damages argument. The defense will argue that the company complied with all regulatory requirements and that the internal documents are being taken out of context. The counter is the full document record, presented in context, supported by the testimony of the scientists and regulators who were in the room.
Step 5: The damages model. A life-care planner builds the cost stream — past and future medical expenses, ongoing surveillance, rehabilitation, medication, and any future treatment needs. A forensic economist reduces it to present value. Lost wages and diminished earning capacity are calculated from employment records and earning history. Non-economic damages — pain, suffering, loss of quality of life — are argued from the medical record and the plaintiff’s testimony. Punitive damages, where the corporate-conduct evidence supports them, are argued from the internal documents. The total is a number that a jury can understand and a defendant must take seriously.
Your First Steps: What to Do Right Now
If you used Roundup and you have been diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma, or if you have an existing Roundup claim and you are trying to decide whether to participate in the $7.25 billion settlement or opt out, here is what you should do — in order, starting today.
First: Gather your exposure documentation. Write down everything you can remember about your Roundup use — when you started, when you stopped, how often you used it, what size containers you purchased, where you bought them, what you used them for (lawn care, gardening, agriculture, landscaping, grounds maintenance, forestry, weed control along fence lines or drainage ditches). Find purchase receipts, credit card statements, bank records that show purchases from home-improvement stores, farm-supply stores, or garden centers. Photograph any product containers you still have. Identify anyone who can confirm your Roundup use — family members, neighbors, coworkers, employers. If you used Roundup at work, request your employment records, including any documentation of pesticide application, safety training, or personal protective equipment provided. This is the evidence that is dying the fastest, and it is the evidence your case cannot survive without.
Second: Assemble your medical records. Request your complete medical record from every provider who has treated your NHL — the diagnosing physician, the oncologist, the radiation oncologist, the surgeon if applicable, the pathology lab that confirmed the diagnosis and subtype, every hospital where you received treatment. These records are stable but should be requested now, before provider mergers or record-destroyal cycles thin them.
Third: Evaluate the settlement decision individually. Do not accept the settlement matrix payout without understanding what your individual case is worth on the surviving theories. Do not opt out without understanding the SCOTUS headwinds and the risks of individual litigation. This is a decision that should be made with a lawyer who can compare the settlement matrix payout against your individual litigation value, factoring in the surviving-theory landscape, your venue, your exposure strength, and your NHL severity.
Fourth: Track the congressional amendment. If the Pingree-Massie amendment passes, it could restore the failure-to-warn theory and substantially change settlement-leverage calculations. The amendment’s status is a variable that affects your decision calculus, and it should be monitored.
Fifth: Do not sign anything you do not understand. A settlement participation form, an opt-out form, a release, a medical authorization — each of these documents has legal consequences that can be irreversible. Do not sign any document related to your Roundup claim without having it reviewed by a lawyer who handles toxic tort and product liability cases.
Sixth: Watch the clock. The statute of limitations for a personal injury claim varies by state — commonly two to three years in many jurisdictions, though some states allow longer periods. In toxic tort cases, the discovery rule often means the clock starts when you discovered or should have discovered the connection between your NHL and Roundup exposure — not when you were exposed years or decades ago. But some states impose an outer deadline — a statute of repose — that can cut off a claim even before discovery. You must confirm the specific deadline for your state with a lawyer, because a missed deadline is a dead case, no matter how strong the evidence is.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is my Roundup lawsuit over because of the Supreme Court decision?
No. The Supreme Court’s 7-2 ruling in Monsanto Company v. Durnell blocked state-law failure-to-warn claims — the theory that Monsanto should have put a cancer warning on the Roundup label. But three other theories survived: design defect (challenging the product’s formulation), fraudulent concealment (targeting Monsanto’s alleged suppression of cancer-risk evidence), and negligent testing (challenging the adequacy of the company’s research). Your case is not dead. It is harder, and it requires a different legal architecture, but it is alive.
Should I take the $7.25 billion settlement or opt out?
That depends entirely on your individual case. The settlement matrix assigns payouts based on exposure level, diagnosis, and other factors — and some claimants could receive as little as $6,000. A claimant with documented heavy Roundup exposure and confirmed non-Hodgkin lymphoma may have an individual case worth vastly more than the settlement payout, even on the surviving theories post-SCOTUS. Every claimant should have their case evaluated individually against the settlement matrix before making this decision. Do not assume your case fits the class average.
What happens if the congressional amendment passes?
If the Pingree-Massie amendment to FIFRA is enacted, it would preserve state-law failure-to-warn claims notwithstanding EPA label approval — effectively overriding the Supreme Court’s decision and restoring the primary theory that drove the largest Roundup verdicts. If the amendment passes, case values could substantially return to pre-SCOTUS levels. If you have already accepted a settlement by then, you will have traded away a case that could have been restored to full value. This is why the amendment’s status is a critical variable in the settlement decision.
How much is my Roundup case worth?
The range is enormous. At the low end, the settlement floor is $6,000 for minimal-exposure claimants. At the high end, individual opt-out verdicts on surviving claims with strong exposure documentation and compelling corporate-conduct evidence can reach $50 million or more. The $2.1 billion Georgia verdict in 2025 represents the extraordinary upper end of pre-SCOTUS verdicts, though its post-SCOTUS appellate status is uncertain. Post-SCOTUS, your case value depends on whether design-defect or fraudulent-concealment theories survive preemption challenges in your venue, the strength of your exposure documentation, your NHL subtype and prognosis, and the venue. No lawyer can give you a specific number without reviewing your exposure history, your medical records, and your venue.
How long do I have to file a Roundup lawsuit?
The statute of limitations varies by state. Most states have a personal injury deadline of two to three years, though some allow five years or longer. In toxic tort cases, the discovery rule often means the clock starts when you discovered — or by reasonable diligence should have discovered — the connection between your NHL and Roundup exposure, not when you were exposed. But some states impose a statute of repose — an outer deadline that can bar a claim even before discovery. You must confirm the specific deadline for your state with a lawyer. A missed deadline is a dead case.
What evidence do I need for a Roundup case?
Two categories: exposure documentation and medical records. Exposure documentation includes purchase receipts, product containers, usage logs, witness statements, and employment records for agricultural or landscaping workers. This evidence is the most perishable — receipts degrade, containers are discarded, memories fade, witnesses relocate. Medical records include your NHL diagnosis, subtype, treatment history, prognosis, and all related pathology and oncology records. The corporate-conduct evidence — Monsanto internal documents, ghostwriting allegations, regulatory-submission history — is largely available from prior litigation and does not need to be preserved by you. But your personal exposure and medical evidence must be assembled now.
Can I still get punitive damages in a Roundup case?
Punitive damages remain a live issue where evidence of corporate knowledge of cancer risk and alleged suppression of unfavorable research can be established. The Monsanto internal documents produced in prior Roundup trials — emails, ghostwriting allegations, internal safety debates — support a punitive-damages argument that the company knew of the risk and chose to suppress it. Whether a jury hears that evidence depends on which surviving theory your case is built on and whether that theory survives preemption challenges in your venue. The failure-to-warn theory that carried punitive damages in many pre-SCOTUS verdicts is now blocked, but fraudulent-concealment and negligent-testing theories can still support punitive damages where the corporate-conduct evidence is strong.
What if my loved one died from non-Hodgkin lymphoma after using Roundup?
If your family member died from NHL after documented Roundup exposure, a wrongful-death claim may be available, depending on who is authorized to bring it under your state’s law and whether the statute of limitations has run. Wrongful-death damages typically include the loss of the person’s future financial support, the loss of their household services, funeral costs, and in some states the loss of the relationship itself. A survival action may also be available for the decedent’s own pain and suffering between diagnosis and death. Both claims are subject to the same surviving-theory landscape as personal-injury cases — failure-to-warn is blocked, but design defect, fraudulent concealment, and negligent testing may survive. The statute of limitations for wrongful death is typically shorter than for personal injury and starts from the date of death, not the date of exposure — but it varies by state and must be confirmed with a lawyer.
Is it too late to join the Roundup litigation?
It depends on your state’s statute of limitations and the discovery rule. If you were diagnosed with NHL recently and only recently connected it to Roundup exposure, the discovery rule in many states means the clock may have just started. If you were diagnosed years ago and knew or should have known about the connection, the clock may have already run. The congressional amendment, if passed, could affect the landscape for new filings. You need to confirm the deadline for your state with a lawyer — do not assume it is too late, and do not assume you have plenty of time.
Why We Fight: Attorney911 and Your Roundup Case
We are Attorney911 — The Manginello Law Firm, PLLC. We are a trial firm that handles toxic tort, product liability, and catastrophic injury cases. We are not your counsel on this Roundup matter unless and until you call us and we take your case. But we are going to tell you who we are and why the firm that evaluates your case matters as much as the case itself.
Ralph Manginello has spent 27-plus years in courtrooms, including federal court. He was a journalist before he was a lawyer, which means he learned early that the truth is something you find by digging, not something you are handed. He is admitted to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. He handles cases that involve corporate defendants, complex regulatory frameworks, and the kind of document-heavy, expert-intensive litigation that a Roundup case demands. He does not like losing, and that is not a marketing line — it is a disposition that determines how a case gets built.
Lupe Peña is a former insurance-defense attorney. He spent years inside a national defense firm — the rooms where claims are valued, where reserves are set, where settlement matrices are designed, and where the decision to fight or pay is made. He knows how corporate defendants and their insurers calculate what a case is worth and what they are willing to pay to make it go away. He uses that knowledge for injured clients now. He is fluent in Spanish and conducts full consultations in Spanish without an interpreter — hablamos Español — because a family that prays in Spanish should not need a translator to understand their legal rights.
We work on contingency. That means we do not get paid unless we win your case. The fee is 33.33 percent before trial and 40 percent if the case goes to trial. The cost of building the case — experts, document review, depositions, the life-care planner, the forensic economist — is advanced by the firm. You do not write us a check. You do not pay hourly. We take the financial risk, and we take it because we believe that the person with the cancer diagnosis should not be the person who cannot afford to fight the corporation that caused it.
The first call is free. The consultation is confidential. We will tell you honestly whether we are the right fit for your case — and if we are not, we will tell you that too. Past results depend on the facts of each case and do not guarantee future outcomes. What we can guarantee is that when you call, you will speak to a real person, not an answering service, and you will get an honest evaluation of where your case stands in the post-SCOTUS landscape.
If you used Roundup and you have non-Hodgkin lymphoma, or if you have an existing claim and you are trying to decide whether to take the settlement or opt out, call us at 1-888-ATTY-911 (1-888-288-9911). The call is free. The consultation is confidential. There is no fee unless we win your case. The evidence clock is running. The settlement deadline is approaching. The congressional amendment is pending. And your case — the one you think the Supreme Court just killed — is still alive.
Contact us. Let us tell you what it is actually worth.