If Companies Can’t Be Sued, Who Protects Consumers? Inside the Roundup Supreme Court Case
Imagine you are a manufacturer. You sell your product and earn a profit. Later, people start to worry that your product causes cancer and other serious health problems. Now, think about finding a way to stop anyone from suing you if they get sick or hurt from using it.
Unfortunately, this is not hypothetical. It reflects Bayer’s latest effort to limit who can hold pesticide manufacturers accountable when products like Roundup cause harm.
For years, Bayer has looked for ways to “manage and mitigate the risks” from nearly 197,000 lawsuits by people who say they got cancer after using the herbicide Roundup. Now, one of Bayer’s most important strategies is before the U.S. Supreme Court, where the decision could change who decides if a product is safe.
Earlier this year, the Supreme Court agreed to hear Bayer’s appeal in Monsanto v. Durnell. In 2023, a Missouri jury awarded John Durnell $1.25 million after deciding that his long-term use of Roundup caused his non-Hodgkin lymphoma. The jury found that Bayer did not warn consumers about the cancer risk, noting there was no warning label on the product.
After the Missouri Court of Appeals rejected the company’s attempts to overturn the verdict, Bayer appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing it should not have to warn consumers because the Environmental Protection Agency concluded glyphosate does not cause cancer or require a warning label.
Independent Juries vs. Government Regulations
The main issue is whether the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) blocks state failure-to-warn claims when the EPA has approved a product’s label. Bayer says FIFRA sets national labeling rules, so states should not require extra warnings beyond what the EPA approves.
The U.S. Solicitor General supports this argument and asked the Court to hear the case. The government says juries should not be able to review the same safety evidence as the EPA and reach different conclusions from the agency.
This position is troubling. Numerous juries have looked at the evidence and reached different conclusions than the EPA. These decisions have led to large verdicts against Bayer.
Juries exist for a reason. They serve as a safeguard when regulatory systems fall short and when corporate interests outweigh public safety. Jurors evaluate evidence, assess credibility and act as an essential check on both industry and government decision-making. Removing that check and placing final authority solely in the hands of a regulatory agency would be a grave mistake.
History shows why. Science evolves. Products once considered safe, often with industry and regulatory support, have later been shown to be dangerous. Asbestos was widely used before it was linked to mesothelioma and lung cancer. Cigarettes were once endorsed by doctors, even during pregnancy. Automakers resisted seatbelts, claiming they were unnecessary or unsafe, until lawsuits and crash data proved otherwise.
If those manufacturers had been granted immunity because regulators believed the science was settled, countless people could have been injured with no legal recourse.
That history matters here. The EPA’s conclusion that Roundup is safe has been criticized for relying on studies alleged to be fraudulent or ghostwritten by scientists from Monsanto (the original producers of Roundup). Those allegations highlight why independent juries, not just regulatory agencies, play a critical role in uncovering the truth.
The Wide-Ranging Impacts of a Supreme Court Ruling
If the Supreme Court sides with Bayer, the consequences will extend far beyond Roundup. While most current Roundup lawsuits focus on cancer, growing research links glyphosate and other pesticides to infertility, reproductive harm and endocrine disruption. A ruling in Bayer’s favor would effectively shield pesticide manufacturers from state failure-to-warn lawsuits once the EPA approves a label, even if later science shows that the product is dangerous.
The impact would not stop there. Such a decision could protect roughly 57,000 pesticides currently on the U.S. market, many of them highly toxic. It would also extend protection to foreign manufacturers that sell pesticides in the United States, regardless of the harm those products may cause.
Bayer’s efforts are not limited to the courts. The company has supported legislative efforts at the state and federal levels to achieve the same result by limiting consumer lawsuits. Those efforts have already succeeded in states such as North Dakota and Georgia, with similar bills advancing in other states.
This case is not just about Roundup. It is about whether consumers retain the right to seek accountability when they are harmed, or whether that power shifts quietly to regulators and corporations.
Lawsuits are not meant to undermine science or regulation. They exist to challenge them when needed. If this safeguard is lost, consumers are left unprotected. The main question is clear: If companies cannot be sued, who will protect consumers?
