Court Affirms $175M Roundup Verdict, Rejecting Bayer’s Appeal
Editors carefully fact-check all Drugwatch.com content for accuracy and quality.
Drugwatch.com has a stringent fact-checking process. It starts with our strict sourcing guidelines.
We only gather information from credible sources. This includes peer-reviewed medical journals, reputable media outlets, government reports, court records and interviews with qualified experts.
The Superior Court of Pennsylvania has upheld a $175 million victory for a Roundup lawsuit plaintiff. The hefty payout was determined by a jury in the 2023 case of Ernest Caranci. The plaintiff claimed that he developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma due to exposure to the popular weed killer.
Bayer, which acquired Roundup maker Monsanto in 2018, had hoped to overturn the verdict as it continues to battle thousands of similar lawsuits.
The company, which says it has won 17 of the 25 most recent cases to go to trial, vowed to continue to fight against the result.
“We disagree with the Court’s ruling and will consider our legal options for further review,” Bayer said in a statement on Thursday. “… This verdict and the unconstitutionally excessive damage award cannot stand because both are at odds with the extensive weight of scientific evidence and the consistent assessments of expert regulators and their scientists worldwide.”
The court’s decision was the latest blow to Bayer as it continues to pursue multiple avenues to end the ongoing Roundup litigation. Tens of thousands of lawsuits remain active in federal and state courts.
In March, a Georgia jury awarded a $2.1 billion verdict to a plaintiff in a similar case. Bayer has also filed a petition for the U.S. Supreme Court to review a Roundup case, in the hope that a ruling in its favor could resolve the larger litigation.
Manufacturer’s Preemption Argument for Roundup Lawsuits Falls Short
Bayer’s appeal attempt was based on several factors, including claims that there were improper communications between the court staff and jury during deliberations after the trial.
The appeal stated that court staff told the jurors that they would need to come to a decision within a couple of days or a mistrial would be declared. While Monsanto claims that the information could have swung votes, the court did not find these arguments convincing.
However, one major factor could impact numerous Roundup lawsuits: Bayer’s argument that the verdict should be overturned because the claims at the heart of Caranci’s lawsuit are trumped by federal law.
The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) is a statute that governs the registration and sale of pesticides in the U.S. Based on the Act, Bayer has ramped up efforts to claim that federal regulations on pesticides preempt state law.
The company argues that, since the Environmental Protection Agency doesn’t require the Roundup label to warn of cancer, state laws cannot require those warnings either.
Caranci’s lawsuit, and many others like it, are based on state failure-to-warn claims to argue that Bayer and Monsanto should have alerted their customers of a cancer risk from their product.
Bayer’s argument was seemingly buoyed last year after the Third Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the company on the issue of federal preemption in Schaffner v. Monsanto. But the company has struggled to use that potentially key ruling to its advantage in other cases.
The Superior Court of Pennsylvania rejected that argument in the Caranci case, noting that it is not bound by any decisions from a federal appeals court.
“We find the Schaffner Court’s reasoning and conclusion unpersuasive,” the court said in its decision. “… it relies on only one section of FIFRA and does not consider all the requirements that FIFRA imposes on manufacturers of pesticides regarding adequate labels.”
This is a potentially significant boost for Roundup plaintiffs, with the question of federal preemption continuing to loom over the larger litigation.
While the Third Circuit Court of Appeals sided with Bayer on this issue, both the Ninth and Eleventh Circuits have rejected those arguments.
Bayer recently filed a petition for the Supreme Court to review a Roundup case and the issue of federal preemption. A decision could come during the 2025–26 session.