$7.25 Billion Roundup Settlement Faces Legal Pushback: Attorneys Seek Delay and Transparency
A group of plaintiffs’ attorneys representing thousands of cancer claimants has asked a federal court to delay and closely review Bayer’s proposed multibillion-dollar Roundup settlement, citing concerns about a lack of transparency and insufficient review.
In a motion to intervene filed this week, 14 law firms representing nearly 20,000 plaintiffs asked the court to delay preliminary approval of the $7.25 billion class settlement. They argue the timeline is too short and that key provisions raise fairness and due process concerns for those alleging that exposure to Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide caused their non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL).
Announced earlier this month, the settlement aims to resolve current and future claims that Roundup causes cancer. This development coincides with the U.S. Supreme Court’s upcoming review of a preemption case that could affect future failure-to-warn claims against pesticide manufacturers.
Objections to the Process
The intervening firms state that the agreement was negotiated without input from many attorneys representing large numbers of Roundup plaintiffs. They report having little time to review the complex settlement before Bayer and a small group of plaintiffs’ lawyers sought preliminary approval.
According to the motion, settlement supporters requested preliminary approval within about 15 days. The objecting firms seek a 60-day extension, citing the deal’s scope and its potential impact on thousands of cancer victims as reasons for a more thorough review.
The attorneys also argue that absent class members, including those who may develop NHL in the future, could have their legal rights affected without adequate representation during negotiations.
Concerns About Compensation Structure
A key concern in the motion is the proposed compensation structure, which reportedly creates tiers distinguishing between occupational and residential Roundup users.
Under the proposed framework, occupational users could be eligible for significantly higher compensation than residential users. The objecting attorneys argue that the disparities may not fairly reflect the range of exposure scenarios or the severity of individual injuries.
They also question whether the settlement offers adequate compensation for all claimant categories and whether its release provisions are too broad. They warn that some class members may have to waive important legal rights for payments that could be uncertain or limited.
The Supreme Court Shadow
The proposed settlement comes at a critical point in the litigation. The U.S. Supreme Court will soon hear arguments on federal preemption under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, which could determine whether state law failure-to-warn claims are barred when federal regulators have approved product labeling.
Some plaintiffs’ attorneys believe the timing of the settlement raises strategic concerns. A Supreme Court decision favoring Bayer could limit future Roundup lawsuits, while a ruling for plaintiffs could expose the company to ongoing jury trials and significant verdict risk.
The intervening firms suggest that approving a broad class settlement before the Supreme Court’s decision may not serve all claimants’ best interests.
Bayer’s Position
Bayer maintains that the proposed settlement is fair and provides a comprehensive framework for addressing existing and future claims. The company acknowledges expected objections but believes the agreement offers long-term certainty and compensation for eligible claimants.
Bayer continues to deny that Roundup causes cancer and defends the safety of glyphosate-based products, citing regulatory findings in the United States and internationally.
What Happens Next
The judge overseeing the case must now determine whether to allow the intervention and whether to extend the schedule for considering preliminary approval of the settlement. That decision could dictate how much time attorneys and potential class members have to examine the agreement’s terms before the court decides if it meets standards for fairness, reasonableness and adequacy.
For the thousands of anxious plaintiffs, the next few weeks may be critical. The outcome will determine whether the proposed settlement moves forward as drafted, is revised, or undergoes a more extensive review before a final decision is made.
