Glyphosate Legal Claims Continue to Rise as Roundup Lawsuits Spread Nationwide
We are Rueb Stoller Daniel, a national law firm focused on mass tort and class action litigation. We represent individuals across the United States who have been harmed by dangerous products, toxic exposure, defective drugs, and unsafe medical devices. Our team has deep experience in handling complex cases involving some of the largest corporations in the world. We are currently fighting on behalf of individuals in glyphosate legal claims, including those affected by Roundup weed killer and similar herbicides.
Lawsuits over Roundup weed killer are growing across the United States as more individuals file glyphosate legal claims after developing cancer. Many of these claims focus on the link between glyphosate, Roundup’s active ingredient, and non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Courts in both federal and state jurisdictions have returned high-profile verdicts, including large punitive damages. While Bayer, the maker of Roundup, continues to defend the product’s safety, juries have repeatedly found the company liable for failure to warn.
In this blog, you will learn how glyphosate legal claims are developing, what courts are saying in Roundup cancer lawsuits, and why working with an experienced mass tort lawyer is important if you are considering filing a claim.
Glyphosate: Scientific and Regulatory Background
Glyphosate remains at the center of national and international debates about health, safety, and legal responsibility tied to Roundup weed killer.
What Is Glyphosate?
Glyphosate is a synthetic chemical used in herbicides, including the widely sold Roundup weed killer. It is one of the most common ingredients in weed control products used in farming, landscaping, and home gardens. Glyphosate-based herbicides are marketed for their ability to kill weeds without harming crops that are genetically modified to resist the chemical.
Health Concerns and Cancer Risk
Scientific evidence has raised concerns about glyphosate exposure and cancer risk. In 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), part of the World Health Organization, classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans” (Group 2A) based on animal studies and limited evidence in humans. This classification has become a central issue in glyphosate legal claims and Roundup cancer lawsuits.
At the same time, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has maintained that glyphosate does not pose a serious cancer risk to humans when used according to label instructions. This difference in scientific opinions continues to shape the ongoing Roundup litigation and regulatory discussions.
Regulatory Oversight Under Federal Law
In the United States, glyphosate is regulated under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), codified at 7 U.S.C. §136. FIFRA gives the EPA authority to approve pesticide labels, set usage limits, and evaluate safety data submitted by manufacturers. Bayer, which now owns Roundup, relies on this federal law in defending against failure to warn claims in many Roundup related lawsuits.
However, some state laws go further. For example, California includes glyphosate on its Proposition 65 list of chemicals known to cause cancer. This has led to legal conflict between federal labeling requirements and state-level cancer warning mandates.
Global and U.S. Assessments
Worldwide regulatory assessments vary. Some countries restrict or ban glyphosate due to health and environmental concerns. In contrast, U.S. regulators have generally continued to support Roundup’s safety profile, despite the increasing number of glyphosate legal claims.
These conflicting views from international agencies and federal authorities have become a key point in Roundup products liability litigation. Plaintiffs argue that the risks were downplayed, while Bayer and its legal teams point to long-standing approvals and risk evaluations.
Core Legal Issues in Roundup Litigation
Roundup lawsuits across the country center on several legal claims involving product safety, cancer risk, and labeling compliance.
Failure to Warn Claims
Many plaintiffs allege that Bayer failed to provide adequate warnings about the risk of cancer linked to glyphosate exposure. These failure to warn claims argue that users of Roundup weedkiller were not properly informed of the potential to develop non-Hodgkin lymphoma and other cancers. In several Roundup cancer trials, juries have found that the warnings were insufficient and awarded significant damages.
Conflict Between Federal and State Laws
A key legal issue in Roundup litigation is the conflict between federal labeling requirements and state-level warning laws. Under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulates pesticide labeling at the national level. Bayer argues that because the EPA approved Roundup labels, it cannot be held liable under state law for failure to warn. Plaintiffs counter that federal law does not prevent states from requiring stronger cancer warnings, citing laws like California’s Proposition 65.
Admissibility of Scientific Evidence
Courts must decide what scientific evidence is allowed during Roundup trials. This has led to differences between jurisdictions. For example, the New Jersey Supreme Court issued a favorable ruling for plaintiffs by allowing expert testimony that connects glyphosate to cancer. Other courts have taken more limited views. The way trial courts evaluate scientific evidence affects the outcome of many glyphosate legal claims.
Product Liability and Design Defect Claims
Some lawsuits include design defect claims, arguing that Roundup is inherently dangerous and that safer alternatives were available. These claims fall under broader Roundup products liability litigation and aim to prove that glyphosate-based herbicides pose an unreasonable risk. Courts in Missouri, Pennsylvania, and California have addressed these arguments in high-profile Roundup cancer lawsuits.
Punitive Damages and Jury Verdicts
Juries in several state courts have awarded large punitive damages against Bayer. These awards reflect findings that the company acted with reckless disregard for public safety. In some cases, courts have reduced the amounts but upheld the original verdicts. Other juries have returned defense verdicts, showing that outcomes vary depending on the evidence and the court.
Preemption Defense and Ongoing Appeals
Bayer continues to raise a preemption defense, claiming that federal law prevents state tort claims. The company has taken this argument to federal courts and the Supreme Court. So far, the Supreme Court has declined to hear appeals in several cases, letting lower court decisions stand. This has allowed many Roundup related lawsuits to proceed in both state and federal jurisdictions.
Roundup Lawsuit Landscape: Key Courts and Jurisdictions
Roundup lawsuits are active in both federal and state courts, with several jurisdictions playing a central role in shaping the outcomes of glyphosate legal claims.
Federal Multidistrict Litigation
The main federal venue for Roundup products liability litigation is the multidistrict litigation (MDL) in the Northern District of California. This MDL consolidates thousands of lawsuits filed by individuals who claim that glyphosate exposure caused them to develop cancer. The goal of the MDL process is to streamline pretrial proceedings and manage consistent rulings across similar cases. Some of the earliest and most influential rulings in Roundup litigation have come from this court.
State Courts in Missouri
Missouri courts, especially those in St. Louis, have seen a high number of Roundup cancer lawsuits. These courts have produced significant jury verdicts, including awards for punitive damages. Plaintiffs argue that Bayer failed to warn users in Missouri and that state laws support holding the company liable. Missouri remains a key battleground in ongoing Roundup cases.
Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas
Philadelphia has become an active location for glyphosate legal claims. The Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas is known for its plaintiff-friendly track record in mass tort cases. Recent Roundup cancer trials in this court have led to large verdicts, reinforcing the city’s importance in the national litigation landscape.
New Jersey Superior Court and Supreme Court
New Jersey courts have taken a leading role in evaluating scientific evidence in Roundup-related lawsuits. The New Jersey Supreme Court issued a favorable ruling for plaintiffs by allowing expert testimony that links glyphosate to cancer. This decision has strengthened the position of plaintiffs in New Jersey and influenced courts in other states.
Illinois and the Chicago Roundup Case
Cook County courts in Illinois are handling several Roundup lawsuits, including the closely watched Chicago Roundup case. These lawsuits test local interpretations of product liability and warning obligations. Outcomes in Illinois may influence similar claims in the Midwest.
Other State and Circuit Courts
Trial courts and circuit courts across the country are involved in active Roundup litigation. Georgia, Pennsylvania, and California juries have delivered both favorable rulings and defense verdicts. The Third Circuit and other appellate courts are reviewing key legal questions, including preemption and admissibility of expert evidence.
Contact an Experienced Roundup Lawsuit Attorney Today!
If you or someone close to you has been diagnosed with cancer after using Roundup or other glyphosate-based weed killers, you may have the right to file a legal claim. The team at Rueb Stoller Daniel is committed to helping individuals understand their rights and take action. Our experienced mass tort lawyers have the resources and knowledge to handle complex glyphosate legal claims and fight for the compensation you deserve.
Contact us at 1-866-CALL-RSD for a free case review today!
