Round Up Litigation: Update for 2025

Ongoing Efforts in Herbicide Litigation

Over the last few years, Round Up, the widely-used herbicide in residential and commercial spaces, has become a central issue in significant legal and public health debates. With its active ingredient, glyphosate, linked to serious health concerns ranging from cancer to neurodegenerative diseases, scrutiny around Round Up extends beyond environmentalists and health professionals to courtrooms across the United States.

As of 2025, despite an $11 billion settlement that addressed nearly 100,000 lawsuits, over 54,000 cases remain unresolved. These persistent legal battles underscore the ongoing concerns about the safety of Round Up and the lack of transparency of its manufacturing and marketing practices.

The lawsuits highlight hardworking individuals: farmers, gardeners, and landscapers, who have all used Round Up as part of their daily working routines, only to face devastating health consequences.

The lead attorney for these lawsuits at our firm is Michael J. Fuller, who is dedicated to achieving closure and justice for those adversely impacted by this product. His methodical and thorough approach aims to finalize the remaining cases, ensuring that our clients receive the relief and accountability they deserve.

History of Round Up Herbicide, from Monsanto to Bayer

Round Up herbicide and its primary ingredient glyphosate is used across the country in both agricultural and residential settings. It was known for its efficacy in eliminating invasive weeds and grasses that compete with cultivated plants. Developed initially by Monsanto, which was acquired by Bayer in 2018, Round Up had been integral to modern farming techniques and home gardening due to its ability to effectively manage unwanted vegetation.

However, the widespread use of glyphosate has finally set off alarm bells by public health and environmental experts. In 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), an arm of the World Health Organization, classified glyphosate as a "probable human carcinogen."

This classification shone a bright light on the question of the chemical's safety, particularly focusing on its potential link to non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, a deadly type of cancer that impacts the lymphatic system. This particular cancer is the main qualifying injury seen in legal cases against glyphosate use, but there are numerous other cancers associated with it, including B-cell lymphomas like Burkitt lymphoma and follicular lymphoma, T-cell lymphomas like mycosis fungoides and Sézary syndrome, as well as various forms of leukemia such as chronic lymphocytic leukemia and hairy cell leukemia.

Beyond cancer, further research exposed potential neurological impacts associated with glyphosate. Studies indicate that long-term exposure could lead to neuroinflammation and increase the risk of developing neurodegenerative diseases, including Alzheimer’s disease.

Moreover, populations in close proximity to glyphosate-sprayed areas have reported higher instances of respiratory issues and adverse reproductive outcomes, suggesting broader systemic health effects to those who are not even directly working with it, but merely around it.

These health concerns have fueled extensive legal and public backlash against Monsanto and now Bayer, culminating in thousands of lawsuits. Plaintiffs in these cases contend that these defendants failed to provide adequate warnings about the risks, manipulated scientific evidence to downplay potential dangers, and prioritized profits over public health safety. The ongoing disputes and accumulating scientific data continue to challenge Monsanto’s previous assertions of glyphosate’s safety.

Current Status of Round Up Litigation in 2025

The legal landscape surrounding Round Up remains challenging, as thousands of cases continue to remain pending. Now in 2025, while Monsanto has settled nearly 100,000 cases with payouts totaling around $11 billion, approximately 54,000 lawsuits remain active. These unresolved cases reflect important cases that Monsanto must still address.

The legal strategy has seen a notable shift with a significant number of cases transitioning from federal multidistrict litigation (MDL) settings to state courts. This move is driven by plaintiffs' success in state-level trials, which have often resulted in favorable outcomes.

Recent legal proceedings include significant verdicts and settlements that continue to shape the strategy around glyphosate litigation. One pivotal bellwether case resulted in a $175 million jury verdict against Monsanto.

However, this case is currently under appeal, with Monsanto challenging the verdict on several grounds, including alleged jury coercion and evidentiary issues. Monsanto's appeal argues that procedural errors and biased evidentiary rulings compromised the fairness of the trial. Specifically, they contend that the trial court improperly excluded evidence supporting the safety of glyphosate and included unfavorable foreign reports.

This case, among others, highlights the ongoing contentious nature of the litigation and the complex legal arguments that continue to unfold in courtrooms, even after the plaintiff secures a jury verdict.

Scientific Scrutiny and States’ Responses to Glyphosate

The scientific scrutiny of glyphosate, the active ingredient in Round Up, has intensified over the years, with key studies linking glyphosate exposure to a range of health issues. This scrutiny extends into the regulatory arena, where the response to glyphosate's safety varies significantly within the United States nationally, statewide, and locally.

Recent scientific studies have raised concerns particularly about glyphosate’s perinatal effects, with evidence suggesting that exposure to glyphosate, especially in farming communities using genetically modified crops, correlates with reduced birth weights and shorter pregnancy durations. These findings add a critical dimension to the ongoing health concerns associated with the herbicide.

The long-term neurological impacts of glyphosate have also come under scrutiny. Studies indicate that exposure can lead to chronic neuroinflammation, potentially exacerbating the development of neurodegenerative diseases like Alzheimer's. This was highlighted by recent research that showed persistent brain inflammation and Alzheimer’s disease markers in exposed mice.

In the United States, the response to glyphosate has been marked by a patchwork of local and state-level actions. Here is a partial list of ongoing state and local regulations in the US regarding glyphosate:

• California has been a leader in regulating glyphosate, with cities like Los Angeles and counties like Sonoma implementing bans or severe restrictions on its use.
• Florida cities such as Miami and Key West have enacted bans on glyphosate on city properties, driven by environmental and health concerns.
• Massachusetts features numerous municipalities, such as Newton and Falmouth, that have adopted measures to reduce or eliminate the use of glyphosate, reflecting a statewide push towards safer pesticide practices.
• Colorado, known for its environmental advocacy, sees cities like Boulder applying severe restrictions on glyphosate use.
• Maryland and Connecticut have implemented statewide restrictions that significantly limit glyphosate use in public spaces and near schools, illustrating a growing trend of statewide actions.
• Vermont and New Hampshire have seen legislative efforts to curb pesticide use, with proposals that, if enacted, would represent some of the strongest restrictions in the nation.

Internationally, the response has been more decisive in some areas, with several countries restricting or banning glyphosate following the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classification of glyphosate as "probably carcinogenic." This international stance has influenced policies in various jurisdictions, prompting more stringent controls or complete bans.

Despite these international, state and local moves, the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has maintained that glyphosate is unlikely to pose a cancer risk to humans. This position aligns with industry-funded studies and has been contentious, as critics argue that corporate influences may sway regulatory opinions, overshadowing independent research that suggests potential health risks.

This disparity between international, local, and US regulatory positions on glyphosate continues to fuel legal, scientific, and public debates. It raises significant questions about the adequacy of current regulatory frameworks and the need for a reassessment of how pesticide safety is evaluated in light of emerging health data. The growing list of states and municipalities taking action reflects a grassroots push for more stringent pesticide controls, which could eventually influence national policy changes.

Impact of Round Up Litigation on Public Health Policy

This litigation has significantly impacted public health awareness and policy concerning the use of chemicals in agriculture. It has propelled a reevaluation of pesticide regulation and safety standards, prompting calls for more rigorous health and environmental protections, as shown above. The cases have spurred greater public discourse on the need for transparency in chemical testing and the influence of corporate interests on public health policies.

As the legal proceedings continue to unfold, the outcomes of these cases could set important precedents for how similar litigations are approached and resolved in the future. The continued push for transparency, rigorous scientific evaluation, and robust regulatory frameworks will be key to ensuring that public health and the environment are not sidelined in the face of corporate interests.

In representing those affected and their families, the law firm of Farrell & Fuller advocates not only for their clients but also for the broader cause of making agricultural practices safer for all. This commitment to challenging systemic issues through the courts is hope for many seeking redress against powerful corporate entities.