Roundup Cancer Lawsuits After the Supreme Court Preemption Ruling — What Bayer’s Move to End Federal Litigation Means for You
You used Roundup for years. Maybe you sprayed it on your property every weekend. Maybe you mixed it by the drum at work. Maybe you were a farmer, a landscaper, a groundskeeper, a maintenance worker — someone whose hands knew the plastic feel of that pump bottle or the metal of that spray rig long before a doctor said the word lymphoma.
Now you are reading that Bayer — the company that owns Roundup, that owns Monsanto, that has spent years fighting tens of thousands of people who say this weedkiller gave them cancer — is telling a federal court the fight is over. That a Supreme Court ruling means your case, and thousands like it, should be thrown out.
Take a breath. The news is real, but the headline is not the last word. What Bayer is doing is a legal move, not a locked door. And the difference between those two things is exactly why you need to understand what the ruling actually changed, what it did not, and what your deadline is — because the clock on your case is running whether the Supreme Court ruled yesterday or a year ago.
We are Attorney911. We are toxic tort and mass-tort lawyers. This page is not a sales pitch — it is the full, honest map of where Roundup litigation stands right now, what the Supreme Court ruling did to the legal landscape, and what it means for someone in your exact position: diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma, exposed to glyphosate, and wondering if the door is still open.
What Bayer Is Actually Doing — and Why
Bayer acquired Monsanto in 2018, and with that acquisition it inherited a product — Roundup — that had already become the center of the largest mass tort in American agricultural history. Tens of thousands of people who used Roundup and later developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma filed lawsuits saying the company knew, or should have known, that its flagship herbicide could cause cancer, and that it failed to warn them.
The federal cases were consolidated in the Northern District of California before Judge Vince Chhabria in a proceeding called the Roundup Products Liability Litigation — MDL number 2741. As of mid-2026, that docket still carried thousands of active cases. Bayer has settled a massive number of claims — reportedly over 100,000 — for a total in the range of $10 billion or more, but thousands of cases remained unresolved, and new ones continued to come in.
Bayer’s primary legal escape hatch has always been preemption — the argument that federal law blocks state-law claims. Here is the specific legal fight: Roundup is a pesticide, and pesticides are regulated under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticate Act — FIFRA. Under FIFRA, the EPA approves the label that goes on every pesticide product, including the warnings it must carry. The EPA has consistently taken the position that glyphosate is “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans” and never required a cancer warning on the Roundup label.
Bayer’s argument is straightforward: if the federal government — the EPA — approved our label without a cancer warning, then a state court cannot use tort law to impose a different labeling requirement by saying “you should have warned about cancer.” That, Bayer says, is a state requirement “in addition to or different from” what FIFRA required — and FIFRA says states cannot do that.
The legal provision at the center of this fight is explicit:
“A State may not impose or continue in effect any requirements for labeling or packaging in addition to or different from those required under this subchapter.”
— 7 U.S.C. § 136v(b) (FIFRA)
The Supreme Court took this question up in Monsanto Company v. Durnell, No. 24-1068 — a case where the Court agreed to decide whether FIFRA expressly preempts state-law failure-to-warn claims when the EPA did not require a cancer warning on the label. The Court heard oral argument in the spring of 2026. Bayer is now treating the resulting ruling as the tool it needs to seek dismissal of the remaining federal Roundup cases — to end the MDL litigation entirely on the theory that the core theory of liability — failure to warn — is federally preempted.
What you need to understand is this: the preemption argument targets one specific type of claim — failure to warn. It does not necessarily reach every theory a plaintiff can bring. And whether your specific case is affected depends on what theory your case is built on, what state you are in, and how broadly courts interpret the ruling.
Can You Still File a Roundup Lawsuit After the Supreme Court Ruling?
Yes — but the path is narrower, and the urgency is greater.
The Supreme Court’s ruling on FIFRA preemption, if it holds that state failure-to-warn claims are preempted when the EPA did not require a cancer warning, would affect the most common theory in Roundup litigation: that Monsanto should have put a cancer warning on the label. That is a failure-to-warn claim, and it is the theory that the preemption argument directly targets.
But failure to warn is not the only theory. Other claims that may survive a preemption ruling include:
Design defect claims — the argument that Roundup is unreasonably dangerous by design, regardless of what the label says. A design defect claim does not necessarily impose a “requirement for labeling” — it challenges the product itself. Whether this theory survives preemption depends on how the courts draw the line, but it is a distinct theory with distinct legal grounding.
Fraud and misrepresentation claims — the argument that Monsanto knew about the cancer risk and actively misled the public and regulators about it. Fraud claims are based on what the company said and did, not on what the label failed to say. They are historically resistant to preemption because they target the company’s own conduct, not a labeling requirement.
Negligent failure to test — the argument that Monsanto failed to adequately study whether its product caused cancer before putting it on the market. This is a conduct-based claim, not a labeling claim.
Breach of express warranty — based on specific representations the company made about the product’s safety, not on the label’s omissions.
State consumer protection claims — many states have statutes that prohibit deceptive marketing, and these claims may not be preempted by FIFRA’s labeling provisions.
The honest answer is: the Supreme Court ruling narrows the field. It does not eliminate it. Whether your specific case can proceed depends on the theory your lawyer pleads, the state you file in, and how the courts in your jurisdiction interpret the ruling. But the worst thing you can do is assume the door is closed and walk away from a case that might still be viable.
Your Filing Deadline: The Statute of Limitations and the Discovery Rule
Every state has a statute of limitations — a hard deadline for filing a personal injury or wrongful death lawsuit. For toxic exposure cases like Roundup, this deadline is governed by two things: the state’s general personal injury statute of limitations, and the discovery rule.
Most states set the personal injury filing deadline at two or three years from the date the injury occurred or was discovered. Some states allow longer — four, five, or even six years. Wrongful death deadlines are typically shorter — often one to three years from the date of death.
But for a disease like non-Hodgkin lymphoma, which can take years to develop after exposure, the question is: when does the clock start? The answer, in most states, is the discovery rule:
The cause of action does not accrue — the clock does not start — until the plaintiff has discovered, or by reasonable diligence should have discovered, both the injury and its connection to the exposure. For a Roundup plaintiff, that typically means the clock starts around the time of your NHL diagnosis, when you learned — or should have learned — that your cancer might be connected to your years of glyphosate use.
This is critical because many people used Roundup decades ago but were only diagnosed with NHL recently. The discovery rule means the clock may have started at diagnosis, not at exposure. But there is a trap: some states impose a statute of repose — an outer deadline that can cut off a claim even before discovery. And some states measure the discovery rule from when you “should have known” — which the defense will argue was earlier than you think, especially if media coverage of the Roundup litigation was widespread.
The practical bottom line: you cannot know your exact deadline without checking the specific rule in your state. But the safe assumption is that the clock is running now, and every month you wait is a month you cannot get back. If the Supreme Court ruling narrows the available claims, it becomes even more important to file quickly — before the legal landscape shifts further or a court interprets the ruling in a way that closes additional doors.
If a family member has already died from non-Hodgkin lymphoma and you believe Roundup exposure was the cause, the wrongful death deadline is typically shorter and often starts on the date of death. Do not wait on this.
Bayer and Monsanto: The Corporate Structure Behind Roundup
The company that made Roundup is Monsanto Company, an American agricultural chemical corporation founded in 1901. In 2018, Bayer AG — the German pharmaceutical and chemical giant — acquired Monsanto for approximately $63 billion. Monsanto became a wholly-owned subsidiary of Bayer, and the litigation that followed became Bayer’s problem.
When you sue over Roundup, the caption defendant is still “Monsanto Company” — the entity that designed, manufactured, marketed, and sold the product for decades. But the money, the insurance, the settlement programs, and the defense strategy all come from Bayer. This is the corporate shell structure: Monsanto is the named defendant with the liability; Bayer is the parent with the balance sheet.
Bayer is one of the largest pharmaceutical and chemical companies in the world. It is not a thinly capitalized LLC that will fold under the weight of litigation. It has the resources to fight every case, to hire the best defense lawyers, to fund decades of appeals — and it has shown it will do exactly that. But it also has the resources to pay when the evidence and the law demand it, which is why it has already settled over 100,000 cases for billions of dollars.
The settlement program Bayer established was reportedly in the range of $10 billion, designed to resolve both filed and unfiled claims. But that program did not cover everyone, and thousands of cases remained — cases where plaintiffs chose not to settle, cases that were filed after the settlement program was established, and cases where the settlement offer was too low to accept.
Bayer’s move to end the federal litigation through the Supreme Court’s preemption ruling is the latest chapter in a strategy that has been clear from the beginning: settle what it must, fight what it can, and use every legal tool available to narrow the path for the cases that remain.
The Medicine: Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma and Glyphosate
Non-Hodgkin lymphoma is a cancer that begins in the lymphatic system — the body’s network of vessels and nodes that carries white blood cells called lymphocytes. When these cells mutate and grow uncontrollably, they form tumors in the lymph nodes, spleen, bone marrow, and other lymphatic tissues. There are more than 70 subtypes of non-Hodgkin lymphoma, ranging from slow-growing (indolent) to aggressive, and the prognosis and treatment vary dramatically depending on the subtype and stage at diagnosis.
The symptoms often begin quietly — swollen lymph nodes in the neck, armpits, or groin; persistent fatigue; unexplained weight loss; fever; night sweats. Many people dismiss the early signs because they mirror less serious conditions. By the time the diagnosis comes, the cancer may already be advanced.
Treatment depends on the subtype and stage. It can include chemotherapy — sometimes multiple rounds of different drug combinations; radiation therapy; immunotherapy, which uses the body’s own immune system to target cancer cells; targeted therapy with drugs that attack specific molecular features of the lymphoma; and in some cases, stem cell transplants to rebuild the bone marrow after high-dose chemotherapy. Some indolent forms are managed with watchful waiting — the cancer is monitored but not actively treated until it progresses. The most aggressive forms require immediate, intensive treatment.
The cost of treatment can be staggering. A single round of chemotherapy can run tens of thousands of dollars. A stem cell transplant can cost hundreds of thousands. Immunotherapy drugs — some of the most effective newer treatments for certain NHL subtypes — can run into six figures per year. And the treatment can stretch over years, with remission and relapse cycles that send patients back to the oncologist again and again.
This is where the science meets the law. The question at the heart of every Roundup case is whether glyphosate — the active ingredient in Roundup — can cause non-Hodgkin lymphoma in humans. The answer depends on which authority you ask.
In 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer — IARC, the cancer research arm of the World Health Organization — classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans,” placing it in Group 2A. That classification was based on a review of the available scientific evidence, including studies showing an association between glyphosate exposure and non-Hodgkin lymphoma in exposed workers. IARC’s Group 2A category is reserved for substances where there is limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans but sufficient evidence in experimental animals, or strong mechanistic evidence.
The EPA has taken a different position. The agency has consistently concluded that glyphosate is “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.” This split between IARC and the EPA is not just a scientific disagreement — it is the legal fault line of the entire Roundup litigation. Bayer’s preemption argument relies on the EPA’s position: the agency reviewed the science, decided a cancer warning was not needed, approved the label, and therefore state courts cannot impose a different requirement through tort law.
Plaintiffs counter that the EPA’s review was flawed, that the agency relied on studies funded by Monsanto, that IARC’s independent review reached a different conclusion, and that the company’s own internal research showed associations between glyphosate and cancer that it did not share with regulators or the public. The proof problem is real — non-Hodgkin lymphoma is a relatively common cancer with many possible causes, and the defense will argue that your cancer came from somewhere else. The counter is your exposure history: how long you used Roundup, how frequently, how you handled it, whether you mixed concentrated forms, whether you were exposed to drift, and whether your cumulative exposure was high enough to make glyphosate a more likely cause than background risk.
The latency period — the time between exposure and disease — complicates the proof. Non-Hodgkin lymphoma can take years to develop after a carcinogenic exposure. You may have stopped using Roundup a decade before your diagnosis. The defense will use that gap to argue the exposure is too remote to be the cause. The plaintiff’s answer is dose reconstruction — building a documented history of your cumulative glyphosate exposure over time and tying it to the known mechanism of lymphatic damage.
What Your Roundup Case Is Worth
No honest lawyer can tell you what your case is worth without reviewing your medical records, your exposure history, and the specific legal posture of your claim. But here is what we can tell you about how the value is built and what the landscape looks like.
The value of a Roundup case is built from the same components as any catastrophic injury or wrongful death claim. On the economic side: past and future medical expenses — every chemotherapy round, every radiation session, every immunotherapy infusion, every stem cell transplant, every doctor visit, every hospital stay. Lost wages and lost earning capacity — the income you missed during treatment, and the income you will never earn because the cancer or its treatment left you unable to work at the same capacity. Future medical care — a life-care plan that prices out the ongoing monitoring, treatment, and medication you will need for as long as you live.
On the non-economic side: pain and suffering — the physical pain of the disease and its treatment; mental anguish — the fear, the anxiety, the depression that comes with a cancer diagnosis; loss of quality of life — the activities you can no longer do, the relationships strained, the future stolen.
In wrongful death cases: the financial support the decedent would have provided to the family; the loss of companionship, guidance, and care; funeral and burial expenses; and in some states, the value of the life itself.
The verdict landscape in Roundup litigation has been genuinely mixed. Some plaintiffs have won significant jury verdicts — but some of those were reduced on appeal, and some were reversed entirely. Bayer has also won defense verdicts in some trials. The record is not a clean string of plaintiff victories, and any lawyer who tells you otherwise is not being honest with you. What the mixed record tells you is that these cases are winnable — but they are not easy, and they turn on the specific evidence and the specific theory.
Bayer’s reported settlement program — approximately $10 billion to resolve over 100,000 claims — gives a sense of the scale, but individual settlement amounts have varied widely based on the strength of the exposure evidence, the severity of the disease, the plaintiff’s age and earning history, and the willingness to go to trial. Some settlements have been reported in the tens of thousands; others in the hundreds of thousands. Trial verdicts that survived appeal have reached higher.
Past results depend on the facts of each case and do not guarantee future outcomes. What we can tell you is that the value of your case depends on building the proof — and that the Supreme Court ruling, by narrowing the available theories, may actually increase the importance of the evidence you can marshal.
The Evidence Clock: What Proof Exists and How Fast It Disappears
Roundup cases are not like car crash cases — the evidence is not sitting in a tow yard waiting to be photographed. The evidence is scattered across years of your life, in records you may not have known existed, and some of it is on a clock.
Purchase records — receipts, credit card statements, store loyalty records, farm-supply invoices showing when and how much Roundup you bought. These establish that you were exposed and for how long. If you bought Roundup at a hardware store with a credit card, the credit card statement is a record. If you bought it in bulk for agricultural use, the supplier invoice is a record. These can be reconstructed, but the longer you wait, the harder it gets — banks and retailers purge transaction records on their own schedules, often after seven years, sometimes sooner.
Employment records — if you used Roundup at work, your employer’s records may show your job title, your duties, the chemicals you handled, the safety training you received (or did not receive), and the duration of your employment. Workers’ compensation records, payroll records, and personnel files can all document occupational exposure. Employers are not required to keep most of these records indefinitely — they cycle out on retention schedules that vary by state and document type.
Medical records — your diagnosis, pathology reports, treatment records, oncology notes, imaging, lab results. These are the backbone of the damages case. Medical records are generally retained for longer periods than employment or financial records, but the specific retention period varies by state and provider. Get your complete medical record — not just the summary, but the full chart with every pathology report, every treatment note, every medication order.
Product identification — the specific Roundup product or products you used. Roundup was sold in many formulations over the years — ready-to-use pump bottles, concentrate bottles, professional-grade formulations, agricultural formulations. The specific product matters because the concentration of glyphosate varies, and the label language varied by product and by year. If you still have an old bottle or container, do not throw it away — photograph it, preserve it.
Witness statements — co-workers, family members, neighbors who can confirm your Roundup use. Memory fades, people move, people die. The sooner statements are taken, the more reliable they are.
The preservation clock is real. The longer you wait to contact a lawyer, the more of this evidence disappears — not because someone is destroying it, but because the ordinary retention schedules of banks, employers, retailers, and medical providers cycle through and purge old records. A preservation letter from a lawyer can freeze some of these records before they are gone, but only if it goes out in time.
If you are reading this page and wondering whether it is too late to gather evidence — it may not be, but the answer gets worse every month you wait. The first step is a free consultation where we can assess what evidence may still exist and what can be preserved.
Bayer’s Defense Playbook: What They Do and How We Counter
Bayer has a sophisticated, well-funded defense machine. It has been fighting these cases for years, and it has a playbook it runs on every plaintiff. Here are the moves you should expect — and how each one is answered.
Play 1: The preemption motion. Bayer’s first and strongest move, especially after the Supreme Court ruling, is to file a motion to dismiss based on FIFRA preemption — arguing that your state-law failure-to-warn claim is preempted because the EPA approved the Roundup label without a cancer warning. The counter is to plead claims that are not preempted: design defect, fraud, misrepresentation, failure to test, breach of express warranty. The preemption ruling targets labeling requirements; it does not necessarily reach claims based on the company’s own conduct separate from the label.
Play 2: The causation challenge. Bayer will argue that your non-Hodgkin lymphoma was not caused by Roundup. They will point to the many other possible causes of NHL — age, immune system conditions, certain infections, family history, other chemical exposures. They will bring in experts who will testify that glyphosate does not cause cancer and that your disease is idiopathic — meaning it came from nowhere identifiable. The counter is dose reconstruction: a documented history of your cumulative glyphosate exposure, tied to the IARC classification, tied to the epidemiological studies showing an association between glyphosate and NHL in heavily exposed workers. You do not have to prove Roundup was the only cause — in most states, you have to prove it was a substantial factor.
Play 3: The Daubert motion. Bayer will try to exclude your experts under the Daubert standard — the legal rule that requires expert testimony to be based on reliable scientific methodology. They will argue that your causation experts’ opinions are not supported by sufficient science, that the epidemiological studies are too weak, that the IARC classification is an outlier. The counter is to bring experts whose methodology is bulletproof — oncologists, epidemiologists, toxicologists who can tie the specific science to your specific exposure and diagnosis, and who can withstand cross-examination on their methods.
Play 4: The statute of limitations defense. Bayer will argue that you waited too long — that the clock started when you should have known about the connection between Roundup and cancer, not when you were actually diagnosed. If there was widespread media coverage of the Roundup litigation years before your diagnosis, they will argue you should have connected the dots earlier. The counter is the discovery rule: the clock starts when you knew or should have known of both the injury and its cause, and a general awareness that “some people are suing Roundup” is not the same as knowing your cancer was caused by your specific exposure.
Play 5: The “you can’t prove you used it” attack. If you cannot produce purchase records, employment records, or other documentation of your Roundup use, Bayer will argue you cannot prove exposure. The counter is building the exposure history from every available source — credit card statements, store receipts, tax records showing agricultural deductions, co-worker testimony, family testimony, photographs, even satellite imagery of your property showing weed-free yards maintained with herbicide.
Each of these plays has a counter, but the counters require work — document collection, expert retention, legal research, and strategic pleading decisions. The sooner that work begins, the stronger the case.
How a Roundup Case Is Actually Built: The Proof Story
Here is how a Roundup case is built, from the first phone call to the courtroom.
Week one: the intake and the evidence freeze. The first thing that happens when you call is an intake — a detailed interview about your Roundup use, your medical history, your diagnosis, your treatment, your work history, and your timeline. From that interview, a preservation letter goes out — to any employer whose records might document your exposure, to any medical provider whose records document your diagnosis and treatment, to any retailer or supplier whose records might show your purchases. That letter tells them: do not destroy anything. It is the single most time-sensitive step in the entire process, because records that are not frozen can be legally purged on routine retention schedules.
Weeks two through eight: document collection and exposure reconstruction. Medical records are pulled — the complete chart, not just the summary. Pathology reports confirm the exact subtype of non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Treatment records document the cost and the course of care. Oncology notes document the prognosis. Employment records are pulled — job titles, duties, duration, any safety training (or lack of it). Purchase records are reconstructed from credit card statements, bank records, store loyalty programs, farm-supply invoices. The exposure history is built: when did you start using Roundup, how often, what concentration, what formulation, how did you apply it, did you mix concentrate, did you spray in windy conditions, did you get it on your skin, did you wear protective equipment.
Months two through six: expert retention and case theory development. An oncologist is retained to testify about the causal connection between glyphosate exposure and your specific subtype of NHL. An epidemiologist is retained to explain the scientific literature — the studies showing elevated NHL risk in heavily exposed workers, the IARC classification, the dose-response data. A toxicologist is retained to explain how glyphosate enters the body, how it reaches the lymphatic system, and the mechanism by which it could cause lymphocyte mutation. A life-care planner is retained to project the lifetime cost of your medical care. A forensic economist is retained to calculate your lost earning capacity.
Months six through twelve: the complaint, filing, and discovery. The complaint is drafted — pleading the theories most likely to survive preemption, tailored to the specific state’s law. The case is filed. Discovery begins — written questions, document demands, depositions of Monsanto’s corporate representatives. This is where the company’s own documents come out: internal emails, research memos, regulatory correspondence, marketing materials. The documents that show what Monsanto knew about glyphosate and cancer, and when it knew it, are the spine of the fraud and misrepresentation claims — the claims that may survive even if failure-to-warn is preempted.
Year one to resolution: depositions, motions, trial or settlement. Monsanto’s witnesses are deposed under oath. Your treating physicians are deposed. Your experts are deposed. The defense’s experts are deposed. Motions are filed — motions to dismiss, motions for summary judgment, Daubert motions to exclude experts. The case moves toward trial or toward a settlement that reflects the strength of the evidence and the risk to both sides.
This is not a fast process. A Roundup case can take one to three years from filing to resolution, sometimes longer if appeals are involved. But the work begins the day you call — and the evidence that is preserved in the first weeks is the evidence that decides the case years later. How long a case takes depends on the facts, the court, and the willingness of both sides to negotiate — but the timeline starts with you.
Your First Steps: What to Do Right Now
If you used Roundup and were diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma — or if someone you love was diagnosed and has since died — here is what you should do, in order.
First: get your medical records together. Request your complete chart from every treating physician, every hospital, every oncology clinic. You want the pathology report that confirmed the NHL diagnosis, the treatment records, the imaging, the lab results, the medication orders. These are yours — you have a legal right to them.
Second: write down your Roundup use history. While your memory is fresh — or as fresh as it can be — write down everything you can remember: what products you used, when you started, when you stopped, how often you used them, where you bought them, what concentration, how you applied them, whether you wore gloves or a mask, whether you mixed concentrate, whether you used them at home or at work or both. Include approximate dates, addresses, and the names of anyone who can confirm your use.
Third: gather any purchase records you still have. Old receipts, credit card statements, bank statements, farm-supply invoices, store loyalty account histories. If you have an old Roundup container in your garage or shed, photograph it and keep it.
Fourth: do not sign anything from Bayer or any claims administrator. If you receive a settlement offer, a release form, a claim form, or any document from Bayer, Monsanto, or any entity administering a Roundup settlement program, do not sign it without having a lawyer review it. A release signed today can permanently waive your right to pursue a case — even if the amount offered is a fraction of what your case is worth.
Fifth: do not post about your case on social media. Everything you post is potentially discoverable. The defense will look. A post about feeling “fine” or a photo of you doing physical activity can be used to minimize your damages claim, even if the activity was a one-time effort that left you exhausted for days.
Sixth: call a lawyer. Not next month. Not after you feel better. Now. The statute of limitations clock is running, the evidence is aging, and the legal landscape is shifting. A free consultation costs you nothing and tells you exactly where you stand.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does the Supreme Court ruling mean my Roundup case is dead?
No — but it may change the theory your case is built on. The ruling addresses FIFRA preemption of state failure-to-warn claims. If your case is built solely on “Monsanto should have put a cancer warning on the label,” it may be directly affected. But cases built on design defect, fraud, misrepresentation, failure to test, or other theories may survive. The specific impact depends on your case, your state, and how courts interpret the ruling. Do not assume your case is dead — talk to a lawyer who can evaluate the specific theories available to you.
Can I still file a new Roundup lawsuit?
Yes, if your statute of limitations has not expired. The Supreme Court ruling does not close the courthouse doors — it narrows the legal theories available. New cases can still be filed, but they must be pleaded carefully to survive preemption challenges. The urgency is greater now because the legal landscape is shifting and the SOL clock is running.
How long do I have to file a Roundup cancer claim?
It depends on your state. Most states have a two- or three-year personal injury statute of limitations, but some allow longer. The discovery rule — which starts the clock when you knew or should have known of both your injury and its connection to Roundup — typically means the deadline runs from around the time of your NHL diagnosis, not from when you used Roundup. But some states have statutes of repose that can cut off claims regardless of discovery. You need to check the specific deadline for your state with a lawyer — and you need to do it quickly.
What if I already have a case pending in the Roundup MDL?
If your case is already pending in MDL-2741 or in a state court, the Supreme Court ruling may trigger motions from Bayer to dismiss your case on preemption grounds. Your lawyer should be evaluating whether to amend your complaint to add non-preempted theories — design defect, fraud, misrepresentation — if they are not already pleaded. If your lawyer has not contacted you about the ruling, call them and ask directly: what does this ruling mean for my case, and what theories does my complaint currently include?
What kind of cancer is linked to Roundup?
The primary cancer alleged in Roundup litigation is non-Hodgkin lymphoma — a cancer of the lymphatic system. Some cases have also alleged other hematologic cancers, including hairy cell leukemia and chronic lymphocytic leukemia. The IARC classification of glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans” (Group 2A) was based in part on studies showing an association between glyphosate exposure and non-Hodgkin lymphoma in exposed workers.
How much is a Roundup cancer case worth?
There is no single answer. The value depends on the strength of your exposure evidence, the severity of your disease, your treatment costs, your lost earning capacity, your pain and suffering, and the legal viability of your claims in your specific state after the Supreme Court ruling. Bayer’s reported settlement program involved approximately $10 billion for over 100,000 claims, but individual amounts varied widely. Trial verdicts have ranged from significant plaintiff awards to defense verdicts. Past results depend on the facts of each case and do not guarantee future outcomes. An honest evaluation requires a lawyer reviewing your specific medical and exposure records.
Should I take a settlement offer from Bayer?
Do not accept any settlement offer without having a lawyer review it. A settlement offer that seems like “easy money” may be a fraction of what your case is worth — and signing a release permanently waives your right to pursue the case further. Bayer’s settlement program has specific terms, eligibility criteria, and release language that can affect your rights. A lawyer can tell you whether the offer is fair, whether your case is worth more, and whether accepting it is the right decision for your family.
What if a family member died from non-Hodgkin lymphoma after using Roundup?
You may have a wrongful death claim, but the deadline is typically shorter than for a personal injury claim — often one to three years from the date of death, depending on the state. If your family member used Roundup and died from NHL, do not wait. Contact a lawyer immediately to determine whether the filing deadline is still open. Wrongful death cases carry their own damages — the financial support the decedent would have provided, the loss of companionship and guidance, funeral expenses — and these are separate from the damages the decedent could have claimed while alive.
I used a generic glyphosate product, not Roundup brand. Can I still sue?
This is a critical question. The Roundup litigation is built on claims against Monsanto — the company that developed glyphosate, that manufactured Roundup, and that is alleged to have known about the cancer risk and failed to warn. If you used a generic glyphosate product manufactured by a different company, your case would be against that manufacturer, not Monsanto — and the legal theories, the preemption analysis, and the evidence may differ. A lawyer can evaluate whether your specific product use supports a claim and against whom.
How do contingency fees work for a Roundup case?
We work on contingency — you pay nothing upfront and nothing out of pocket. Our fee is a percentage of what we recover: 33.33% before trial, 40% if the case goes to trial. If we do not win your case, you owe us nothing. How contingency fees work is straightforward: we take the financial risk, you keep the legal rights. The consultation is free, confidential, and comes with no obligation to hire us.
Why Attorney911
Attorney911 — The Manginello Law Firm, PLLC — is a Houston-based trial firm that takes toxic tort, mass tort, and catastrophic injury cases nationwide. We have been in practice since 2001 — more than 24 years — and we have recovered over $50 million for our clients. That figure is a firm marketing aggregate; past results depend on the facts of each case and do not guarantee future outcomes. But the record tells you something about who you are calling.
Ralph P. Manginello is our Managing Partner. He has been licensed in Texas since November 6, 1998 — 27+ years of trial practice, including in federal court. He is admitted to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. He is a member of the Texas Trial Lawyers Association, the Houston Bar Association, and the Trial Lawyers Achievement Association — Million Dollar Member. Before he was a lawyer, he was a journalist — he spent the first part of his career learning how to find the story, ask the right questions, and tell it to people who needed to hear it. That training shows in how he builds a case: the evidence is gathered like a reporter gathers facts, and the story is told to a jury like a reporter tells it — clear, documented, and impossible to dismiss. Ralph’s full background is available on our firm site.
Lupe Peña is our Associate Attorney. He has been licensed in Texas since December 6, 2012 — 13+ years. He is admitted to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. Before he came to our side of the table, Lupe spent years inside a national insurance-defense firm — the rooms where adjusters and their software decide how to deny, delay, and devalue claims exactly like yours. He knows how the other side values a case, how they pick their medical experts, how they use surveillance, and how they engineer recorded statements. He uses that knowledge for our clients now. And he conducts full consultations in Spanish — without an interpreter. Lupe’s full background is on our site.
We do not get paid unless we win your case. The consultation is free. The call is confidential. And we answer the phone 24 hours a day, seven days a week — not with an answering service, but with live staff who can start helping you immediately.
Call 1-888-ATTY-911 — that is 1-888-288-9911. Or contact us online. The call costs nothing. Not calling could cost everything.
Hablamos Español.