Blog

Jul 10, 2026

Missouri Roundup Cancer Lawsuit Attorneys: Attorney911 Litigates Glyphosate Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma Claims Against Bayer-Monsanto After the Supreme Court’s 7-2 FIFRA Ruling Reversed a $1.25 Million Verdict, We Pursue Surviving Design Defect, Negligent Testing and Breach of Warranty Theories the Preemption Decision Did Not Reach, We Preserve Purchase Receipts, Exposure Logs and Oncology Pathology Records Before They Degrade, the Pending $7.25 Billion Class Settlement Now Before State Court, Lupe Peña the Former Insurance-Defense Insider, Ralph Manginello’s 27+ Years of Federal-Court Trial Practice, Pure Comparative Negligence Still Governs Surviving Claims, the Firm Has Recovered $50M+ for Injury Victims — Free 24/7 Consultation, No Fee Unless We Win, Hablamos Español, 1-888-ATTY-911

Missouri Roundup Cancer Lawsuits After the Supreme Court’s FIFRA Ruling: What Survives and What to Do Now If you used Roundup for years and then heard the words “non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma” from an oncologist, you already know what fear feels like. Now you are hearing that the United States Supreme Court just ruled in favor of Monsanto — and the first question racing through your mind is whether your case, or the case you were about to file, is dead. We are going to answer that question directly, because you deserve the truth and you deserve it now: your case is not automatically over. The ruling is a serious legal setback for one specific legal theory, but it is not the end of every Roundup cancer claim, and it is not the end of the road for every person who sprayed that weedkiller and later developed a blood cancer. What it does is change the map. Some roads are closed. Others are still open but harder to travel. A $7.25 billion class settlement is sitting in a Missouri state court right now, waiting for approval, and the decision you make about whether to participate in it — or pursue an individual case on the legal theories that survived — may be the most important decision in your case. We are Attorney911, and this page is built to give you the straight, lawyer-level analysis of what the Supreme Court actually ruled, which claims may still have life, what the settlement means for…

41 min read Read Article

Jul 10, 2026

Supreme Court FIFRA Ruling Shields Bayer-Monsanto from Roundup Cancer Failure-to-Warn Claims — But Iowa Farmers Diagnosed with Cancer May Still Have Product Liability Paths Through Design Defect, Fraud and Negligent-Testing Theories: Attorney911 Brings Ralph Manginello’s 27+ Years of Federal-Court Trial Practice to Glyphosate Litigation, We Pursue the Agrochemical Manufacturer and Its Distribution Chain, Lupe Peña the Former Insurance-Defense Insider Who Knows How the Corporate Claims Machine Values and Denies These Cases, We Move to Preserve Exposure Records, Medical Charts and Internal Corporate Files Before the Spoliation Clock Runs and the Statute of Limitations Expires, IARC Classified Glyphosate as Probably Carcinogenic While the Industry-Backed Safety Study Was Retracted, Iowa Imposes No Statutory Caps on Compensatory Damages in Cancer and Wrongful-Death Cases, the Firm Has Recovered $50M+ for Injury Victims & Millions in Wrongful-Death Cases — Free 24/7 Consultation, No Fee Unless We Win, Hablamos Español, 1-888-ATTY-911

Iowa Roundup Cancer Lawsuits After the Supreme Court Blocks Failure-to-Warn Claims If you are reading this in Iowa — on a kitchen table in Muscatine, in a farm office outside Ames, in a hospital waiting room in Iowa City — you just heard that the Supreme Court ruled the maker of Roundup cannot be sued for failing to warn people that the weedkiller could cause cancer. And your first thought was probably: my case is dead. The agricultural organizations that lobbied for this outcome said it protects farmers. The company’s CEO called it “overdue justice.” Both candidates for Iowa governor called it a terrible decision. We are going to tell you what the ruling actually does, what it does not do, and why the path forward, while harder, is not closed. The ruling blocks one legal theory — failure-to-warn based on the product label — under a federal pesticide law called FIFRA. It does not block every theory. Design defect claims, fraud claims, and negligent-testing claims target corporate conduct that has nothing to do with the label, and those doors remain open. The Iowa farmers, applicators, and rural families who have been breathing and handling glyphosate for decades deserve to know exactly what survives, what the evidence looks like, and what to do right now before the proof disappears. That is what this page is for. We are Attorney911 — The Manginello Law Firm, and we take toxic tort and catastrophic injury cases in Iowa. The consultation is free. We…

34 min read Read Article

Jul 10, 2026

Roundup Product Liability & Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma Attorneys — Attorney911 Pursues Bayer AG and Monsanto for Glyphosate Exposure Claims After the Supreme Court’s 7-2 Preemption Ruling Overturned a Missouri Jury Verdict, Ralph Manginello’s 27+ Years of Federal-Court Trial Practice, Lupe Peña the Former Insurance-Defense Insider Who Knows How the Corporate Claims Machine Values and Denies Toxic-Tort Cases, We Preserve the Medical Records, Exposure Logs and Product Containers Before the Evidence Clock Runs, FIFRA Labeling and the IARC Probable Carcinogen Classification, the Firm Has Recovered $50M+ for Injury Victims — Free 24/7 Consultation, No Fee Unless We Win, Hablamos Español, 1-888-ATTY-911

The Supreme Court Just Ruled Against Roundup Cancer Victims — Here Is What It Means for You You may have heard the news on June 25, 2026, and felt the floor drop out from under you. The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 to side with Bayer, the manufacturer of Roundup, overturning a Missouri jury’s verdict for a man who spent more than two decades spraying the weedkiller before a doctor told him he had non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. The ruling is expected to block thousands of similar lawsuits across the country — cases filed by farmers, landscapers, groundskeepers, and homeowners who did the same thing that plaintiff did: they used Roundup, year after year, and then got a cancer diagnosis they never saw coming. If that is your story — or your father’s, your mother’s, your spouse’s — you need to hear the truth, and you need it now, before frustration becomes surrender. The science connecting glyphosate to cancer has not changed. The International Agency for Research on Cancer still classifies it as a probable human carcinogen. What changed is the legal door. And a narrowed door is not always a closed one. We are Attorney911 — The Manginello Law Firm. We handle toxic tort and product liability cases, and what we owe you here is not optimism but honesty: what the ruling did, what it did not do, which legal theories may still survive, and exactly what evidence you need to preserve before it disappears. We are not going to tell you…

44 min read Read Article

Jul 10, 2026

Roundup Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma Claims After the Supreme Court’s FIFRA Preemption Ruling — Attorney911 Pursues Bayer and Monsanto in the MassTort-National Glyphosate Litigation, Where Failure-to-Warn Claims Face FIFRA Preemption but Design-Defect and Fraudulent-Concealment Theories Built on Monsanto’s Internal Documents May Survive, We Preserve Exposure Histories, Purchase Records and Oncology Files Before the Evidence Degrades, Ralph Manginello’s 27+ Years of Federal-Court Trial Practice, Lupe Peña the Former Insurance-Defense Insider Who Knows How the Corporate Claims Machine Values and Denies Toxic-Exposure Cases, the Firm Has Recovered $50M+ for Injury Victims — Free 24/7 Consultation, No Fee Unless We Win, Hablamos Español, 1-888-ATTY-911

The Supreme Court Just Ruled for Monsanto on Roundup — Here Is What It Means for Your Cancer Claim You just read the headline. Monsanto won at the United States Supreme Court. Maybe you have a pending Roundup claim and your heart dropped. Maybe you used Roundup for years, you have non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and you were counting on the legal system to hold the company accountable — and now you are wondering whether the door just closed. We need you to hear this clearly before you read another word of news coverage: this ruling is a serious blow to one legal theory, but it is not the end of every Roundup case, and it is absolutely not a court ruling that Roundup is safe. The Supreme Court answered a question about who gets to decide what goes on a pesticide label — the federal government or a state jury. It did not conduct a scientific review of whether glyphosate causes cancer. Those are two different things, and the difference is where your remaining rights live. We are going to walk you through exactly what happened, what it means for your specific situation, and what you should do in the days and weeks ahead. This is not a time to panic, and it is not a time to abandon a claim without understanding what still survives. It is a time to get honest, precise information from people who know how mass tort litigation actually works — not from a headline designed…

33 min read Read Article

Jul 10, 2026

Talcum Powder Mesothelioma & Cancer Product Liability Attorneys, Attorney911 Pursues Johnson & Johnson and the Talc Supply Chain Behind Asbestos-Contaminated Baby Powder Across the MassTort-National Litigation Where Approximately 60,000 Lawsuits Allege Asbestos Contamination Caused Mesothelioma Lung Cancer and Ovarian Cancer, the Journal of Thoracic Oncology Confirms Asbestos Not Talc Is the Carcinogen While The Lancet Retracted a 1977 Safety Paper by an Undisclosed J&J Consultant for Breach of Publishing Ethics, We Preserve Product Containers and Pathology Tissue Blocks for Asbestos-Fiber Testing Before the Evidence Window Closes, Ralph Manginello’s 27+ Years of Federal-Court Trial Practice With Lupe Peña the Former Insurance-Defense Insider Who Knows How Corporate Claims Teams Value and Deny These Cases, the Discovery Rule and Fraud-Based Tolling That Extend Filing Deadlines When a Manufacturer Conceals Contamination Risks, the Firm Has Recovered $50M+ for Injury Victims and Millions in Wrongful-Death Cases — Free 24/7 Consultation, No Fee Unless We Win, Hablamos Español, 1-888-ATTY-911

The Study That Headlines Say Kills Talc Cases Actually Strengthens Yours You saw the headline. Maybe a doctor mentioned it. Maybe a family member forwarded it to you with a question that felt like a verdict: “If talc without asbestos isn’t dangerous, does that mean your case is over?” You are sitting with a cancer diagnosis — possibly mesothelioma, possibly ovarian cancer, possibly lung cancer — and you used talcum powder for years, maybe decades. And now a scientific study seems to say the thing you were exposed to is safe. The fear that arrives in that moment is specific and sharp: that the law has already decided against you before you ever walked into a courtroom. Here is the truth, and it is the opposite of what the headline suggests. That study does not weaken your case. It confirms it. The research found that asbestos-free talc does not cause mesothelioma — which means the mesothelioma you developed came from the asbestos that was in the talcum powder you used. The study isolates asbestos as the killer, not talc. And that is exactly what thousands of plaintiffs have alleged in the roughly 60,000 lawsuits currently pending against Johnson & Johnson: that the company’s baby powder was contaminated with asbestos, and that the asbestos caused the cancer. We handle toxic tort cases at Attorney911, and we have watched this litigation evolve. The science is now sharper than it has ever been — and it points directly at asbestos contamination in cosmetic…

32 min read Read Article

Jul 10, 2026

Talcum Powder Cancer Lawsuit — The Court of Session in Scotland, United Kingdom Approves Group Action Against Johnson & Johnson Over Asbestos-Contaminated Baby Powder Linked to Ovarian Cancer, Mesothelioma, Fallopian Tube and Peritoneal Cancer: Attorney911 Brings Ralph Manginello’s 27+ Years of Federal-Court Trial Practice to Toxic Tort and Product Liability Claims, We Pursue the Manufacturer and Its Talc Supply Chain, We Secure Product Containers, Internal Testing Records and Pathology Slides Before They Vanish, Lupe Peña the Former Insurance-Defense Insider Who Knows How the Corporate Claims Machine Values and Denies These Cases, FDA Cosmetic-Talc Oversight and the Asbestos Carcinogenicity Framework, Multi-Decade Cancer Latency Means the Discovery Rule and Statute of Limitations Are Running, the Firm Has Recovered $50M+ for Injury Victims and Millions in Wrongful-Death Cases — Free 24/7 Consultation, No Fee Unless We Win, Hablamos Español, 1-888-ATTY-911

Scotland’s Highest Civil Court Just Ruled That Johnson & Johnson Talcum Powder Cancer Claims Have a Real Prospect of Success If you used Johnson & Johnson baby powder for years — maybe decades — and then heard the word “cancer” in a doctor’s office, you may have wondered whether the two were connected. You may have seen headlines about lawsuits and filed the thought away. You may have assumed the claims were speculative, the kind of thing that sounds alarming but never goes anywhere in a courtroom. A court in Scotland just put that assumption to rest. The Court of Session — Scotland’s supreme civil court, sitting in Edinburgh — has formally approved a group legal action against Johnson & Johnson on behalf of approximately 300 people who developed cancer after using the company’s talc-based baby powder. The court ruled that these claims have a “real prospect of success” and that group proceedings are the appropriate way to deal with them. That is not a lawyer’s opinion on a website. It is a judge’s finding, issued after evaluating the scientific evidence, the factual record, and the legal foundation of the case. We are Attorney911 — The Manginello Law Firm, PLLC. We handle toxic tort and product liability cases for people who were harmed by products they trusted. This page explains what the Scottish ruling means for anyone in the United States who used J&J talc products and was later diagnosed with ovarian cancer, mesothelioma, fallopian tube cancer, or peritoneal cancer…

51 min read Read Article

Jul 10, 2026

PFAS Forever Chemicals & Childhood Leukemia Toxic Tort Claims in Los Angeles County, California — 125 Children Born 2000–2015 with PFOA and PFOS Detected in Newborn Blood at Birth Now Diagnosed with Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia, Attorney911 Pursues the PFAS Manufacturers, Industrial Dischargers and Water Utilities Behind the Contamination, Ralph Manginello’s 27+ Years of Federal-Court Trial Practice, Lupe Peña the Former Insurance-Defense Insider Who Knows How the Chemical Companies Value and Deny These Claims, We Secure the Newborn Dried Blood Spot Cards, Water-Utility Testing Records and Manufacturer Internal Documents Before Retention Schedules Destroy Them, EPA CERCLA Hazardous-Substance Designation for PFAS, California Proposition 65 and the Discovery Rule with Minor Tolling Mean the Limitations Clock May Still Be Running, Medical Monitoring and Punitive Damages Unbounded by MICRA in California Toxic Tort Cases, the Firm Has Recovered $50M+ for Injury Victims — Free 24/7 Consultation, No Fee Unless We Win, Hablamos Español, 1-888-ATTY-911

Los Angeles PFAS Forever Chemicals and Childhood Leukemia: Your Legal Rights After the UC Irvine Study You are sitting at a kitchen table in Los Angeles County, and your child has cancer. Acute lymphoblastic leukemia — the most common childhood cancer there is. You may have spent two years in and out of hospitals. You may still be there. And now you are reading that researchers found “forever chemicals” in the blood of newborns in Los Angeles County, and that the children who had more of those chemicals in their blood at birth were more likely to develop the exact leukemia your child is fighting. The questions come all at once. Was it the water? Was it something I used while I was pregnant? Could this have been prevented? And the one that keeps you up: did a company know, and say nothing? We are Attorney911 — The Manginello Law Firm. We handle toxic tort and environmental exposure cases, and we are writing this page for one person: the parent who just found this study and needs to understand, in plain language, what it means for their family’s legal rights. This page is legal information, not legal advice, and contacting us is free and confidential. Nothing here states or implies that we represent any family involved in this research or this incident. What we can do — and what we do below — is tell you exactly how California law treats a case like this, what evidence is dying right…

39 min read Read Article

Jul 10, 2026

Roundup Cancer & Products Liability Litigation After the Supreme Court’s FIFRA Preemption Ruling: Attorney911 Pursues Bayer AG and Monsanto for Glyphosate-Related Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma, We Pivot from the Now-Shielded Failure-to-Warn Theory to Design Defect, Active Concealment and Negligent-Testing Claims That May Survive, Seventy Percent of North America’s Roundup Is Manufactured in Muscatine Where Iowa Farmers Face Some of the Nation’s Highest Cancer Rates from Sustained Pesticide Exposure, Ralph Manginello’s 27+ Years of Federal-Court Trial Practice, Lupe Peña the Former Insurance-Defense Insider Who Knows How the Mega-Manufacturer’s Claims Machine Values and Denies Toxic-Exposure Cases, We Secure the Spray Records, Purchase Receipts, Farm Application Logs and Bayer Internal Corporate Documents Before They Are Destroyed, the Discovery Rule May Toll the Statute of Limitations for Latent Cancer Diagnoses, the Firm Has Recovered $50M+ for Injury Victims and Millions in Wrongful-Death Cases — Free 24/7 Consultation, No Fee Unless We Win, Hablamos Español, 1-888-ATTY-911

Iowa Roundup Cancer Lawsuit: What Legal Rights Remain After the Supreme Court’s Preemption Ruling If you are an Iowa farmer, an agricultural worker, a landscaper, or someone who worked at the plant in Muscatine where seventy percent of the Roundup sold in North America is manufactured — and you have been diagnosed with cancer — you are reading this at a specific and frightening moment. The Supreme Court of the United States has just ruled that Bayer cannot be sued for failing to warn people that the weedkiller Roundup could cause cancer. You may be hearing that ruling described as the end of the road. We need you to hear the whole truth before you decide that, because the ruling closes one door — the failure-to-warn door — and the company’s lawyers and the insurance adjusters are counting on you not knowing that other doors remain. This page is written by the trial team at Attorney911 to tell you, in plain language, exactly what the ruling does and does not do, what legal theories may still be available to you under Iowa law, what evidence you need to preserve right now before it legally disappears, and what your case may actually be worth when the right theory is matched to the right proof. We are a trial firm that takes toxic tort and product liability cases in Iowa, working with local counsel where required. The consultation is free. We do not get paid unless we win your case. And the…

41 min read Read Article

Jul 10, 2026

MassTort-National Talc-Asbestos Mesothelioma & Product Liability Attorneys: Attorney911 Pursues Johnson & Johnson and the Talc Manufacturers Behind Asbestos-Contaminated Cosmetics, Ralph Manginello’s 27+ Years of Federal-Court Trial Practice, the FDA Withdrew Its MoCRA-Mandated Asbestos Testing Rule Leaving Manufacturers on the Honor System, We Preserve Talc Product Samples and Lot Records for TEM and PLM Microscopic Testing Before They Degrade, Lupe Peña the Former Insurance-Defense Insider Who Knows How the Corporate Claims Machine Values and Denies These Cases, the Discovery Rule Tolls the Statute of Limitations Until Diagnosis Given Mesothelioma’s Decades-Long Latency, the Firm Has Recovered Millions in Wrongful-Death Cases — Free 24/7 Consultation, No Fee Unless We Win, Hablamos Español, 1-888-ATTY-911

The FDA Walked Away from Asbestos Testing in Talc — What That Means for Your Mesothelioma Case If you are reading this at 2 a.m. from a hospital room or a kitchen table covered in medical bills, you already know the hardest part: someone you love has mesothelioma, and you are trying to understand whether a powder you used for decades — a powder you were told was safe — is the reason. Now you are reading that the FDA withdrew the one rule Congress ordered it to write, the rule that would have forced cosmetics companies to test their talc for asbestos before it ever touched a shelf. And the question forming in your mind is the right one: if the government walked away from protecting us, who is left to answer for what happened? We are. The civil justice system is. And the FDA’s failure does not weaken your case — it sharpens it. Here is the first thing you need to hear: the absence of a testing rule does not mean the absence of a legal claim. It means the opposite. When the federal agency Congress charged with protecting consumers acknowledges the asbestos-in-talc risk, proposes a rule to address it, and then withdraws that rule under industry pressure — leaving manufacturers to operate on what one advocacy group rightly called an honor system — that regulatory gap becomes part of the story a jury hears. It proves that the companies knew the danger was real enough for…

42 min read Read Article

Jul 10, 2026

PFAS Forever Chemicals & Toxic Tort Attorneys — MassTort-National: EPA Rollback on Drinking Water Standards for Four PFAS Compounds Doesn’t Eliminate Manufacturer Liability, Attorney911 Pursues the Chemical Producers Behind PFAS Contamination Linked to Cancer, Immune Dysfunction and Developmental Harm, Ralph Manginello’s 27+ Years of Federal-Court Trial Practice, We Secure Blood Serum Testing, Water Sampling Data and Internal Corporate Documents Before the Evidence Window Closes, the Statute of Limitations Is Running Under the Discovery Rule for Latency-Period Disease, Lupe Peña the Former Insurance-Defense Insider, the Firm Has Recovered $50M+ for Injury Victims and Millions in Wrongful-Death Cases — Free 24/7 Consultation, No Fee Unless We Win, Hablamos Español, 1-888-ATTY-911

The EPA Just Rolled Back PFAS Protections — Your Legal Rights Did Not Roll Back With Them You may have heard the news: the federal government announced it is walking back some of the drinking-water limits it placed on “forever chemicals” — the per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) that have been detected in water systems across the country, including right here in Florida. The rollback rescinds or reconsiders federal limits for four specific PFAS compounds and extends the compliance deadline for two others. Environmental advocates called it a retreat. The administration called it “legally defensible and scientifically grounded.” If you live in the Tampa Bay area — if your family drank the water that Tampa Bay Water distributes, or if you or a loved one attended or worked at the University of South Florida campus where testing found PFAS at six times the recommended limit — you are probably not thinking about politics right now. You are thinking about what is in your blood. You are thinking about the kidney cancer diagnosis, the thyroid disease, the testicular cancer, the immune disorder that seemed to come from nowhere. You are wondering whether the government’s retreat means you have lost your chance to hold someone accountable. You have not. Here is the single most important thing this page will tell you: regulatory limits and civil liability are two separate systems. The EPA’s decision to relax drinking-water standards does not eliminate your right to sue the chemical manufacturers who discharged PFAS into your…

21 min read Read Article