ST. LOUIS — Bayer and a coalition of plaintiffs’ law firms have asked a Missouri judge to preliminarily approve a proposed Roundup settlement of up to $7.25 billion filed Feb. 17 that would compensate thousands of people who say the weedkiller caused their non-Hodgkin lymphoma. The class deal is designed to cap litigation ahead of U.S. Supreme Court arguments set for April 27, 2026, while letting Bayer cancel the agreement if too many claimants opt out, Feb. 21, 2026.
In a statement announcing the proposal, Bayer CEO Bill Anderson said, “Litigation uncertainty has plagued the company for years, and this settlement gives the company a road to closure.” The company denies that Roundup’s key ingredient, glyphosate, causes cancer.
Roundup settlement: what the proposed $7.25 billion deal covers
The proposed Roundup settlement was filed Feb. 17 in the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis and would create a long-term claims program funded by declining, capped annual payments for as long as 21 years. In its announcement, Bayer said the class program would cover Roundup exposure before Feb. 17, 2026 and would include people already diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma as well as those diagnosed within a 16-year window after final approval.
Bayer said the agreements tied to the Roundup settlement will increase its litigation provisions and that it expects a negative free cash flow in 2026 as it finances the resolution.
Unlike a one-time lump-sum payout, the proposed deal is structured as an ongoing compensation system. The proposal uses a tiered schedule that considers how someone was exposed to Roundup, their age when diagnosed and the type of non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
Bayer says the new Roundup settlement differs from the future-claims proposal it floated in 2020 by funding a longer-running program and dropping the science-panel approach.
“No settlement can erase a diagnosis, but this agreement is designed to ensure that both today’s and tomorrow’s patients have access to meaningful compensation,” said attorney Christopher Seeger, who would represent current claimants under the proposed Roundup settlement.
Because of lawsuits, Bayer has already stopped using glyphosate in Roundup sold in the U.S. residential lawn and garden market, though it remains in agricultural products.
Expected awards would vary widely. An agricultural, industrial or turf worker with prolonged exposure who is diagnosed with a more aggressive cancer before age 60 would receive an average award of about $165,000. A residential user diagnosed between ages 60 and 77 with a less aggressive form would average about $20,000, and those diagnosed at 78 or older would average about $10,000, according to details reported by The Associated Press.
Why opt-outs could make the Roundup settlement fragile
Class settlements depend on participation, and this Roundup settlement is no exception. Bayer has said it can terminate the agreement if opt-outs are “excessive,” a provision that gives the company leverage but also injects uncertainty for claimants hoping the deal will deliver quick payments.
That opt-out risk may be heightened by the size of past jury verdicts. In multiple Roundup trials, juries have awarded plaintiffs tens of millions — and, in one recent case, more than $2 billion — before judges reduced some awards. The contrast between those courtroom numbers and the proposed compensation grid is likely to shape how plaintiffs weigh the deal against continuing to litigate.
Some plaintiffs’ lawyers have already signaled skepticism. Missouri attorney Matt Clement, who represents hundreds of Roundup plaintiffs outside the negotiating group, said the proposed payouts “are exceedingly too small,” and he expects many of his clients will opt out.
For Bayer, participation is the point: The company is trying to achieve broad closure that limits both today’s lawsuits and future filings. If too many people opt out, the proposed settlement could collapse — and the company would still face years of trials and appeals.
Supreme Court showdown April 27, 2026, and what it means for the Roundup settlement
The opt-out calculus is complicated by the Supreme Court case set for oral argument April 27, 2026. The justices agreed to hear Monsanto Co. v. John L. Durnell (No. 24-1068), a Missouri appeal that raises a question at the heart of nearly every Roundup case: whether federal pesticide law blocks state-law failure-to-warn claims when the Environmental Protection Agency has approved a Roundup label that does not include a cancer warning.
Durnell involves a $1.25 million Missouri verdict for a man who said he developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma after spraying Roundup at a community garden. Bayer argues that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act — which governs pesticide registration and labeling — should preempt state verdicts that effectively require a warning the EPA has not required.
Federal regulators have become part of the narrative. The EPA has repeatedly disputed claims that glyphosate should carry a cancer warning. In a 2019 news release, the agency said it would not approve labels stating glyphosate is “known to cause cancer,” calling that claim false. Plaintiffs often point to the World Health Organization’s cancer-research arm, which in 2015 classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic,” as evidence that stronger warnings were warranted.
For now, the proposed Roundup settlement and the Supreme Court case run on parallel tracks. Bayer says a favorable ruling would strengthen its position against opt-outs and could narrow the pool of future claims; plaintiffs’ lawyers say state tort suits remain a critical backstop when juries find companies failed to warn consumers about serious risks.
A decade-long fight: earlier Roundup settlements and legal milestones
The current Roundup settlement proposal is the latest attempt to contain litigation that intensified after Bayer bought Monsanto and inherited the product-liability risk. Several earlier inflection points help explain why the company is again trying to build a classwide resolution:
- In 2020, Bayer announced it would pay up to $10.9 billion to resolve most then-pending Roundup claims, a move detailed in AP’s coverage of the first major mass settlement.
- In 2021, a federal judge rejected a separate plan aimed at settling future Roundup cases, saying key parts were unreasonable, as reported by Al Jazeera’s account of the court’s decision.
- In 2022, the Supreme Court declined to take up Bayer’s earlier bid to shut down Roundup cases, a setback covered in an AP report on the justices’ refusal.
What happens next
The next milestone for the proposed Roundup settlement is a preliminary-approval decision by the Missouri judge overseeing the filing. If the judge signs off, a notice process would begin to inform eligible class members of their rights, including deadlines to object or opt out, before a final fairness hearing.
Meanwhile, the April 27 argument date means the Supreme Court fight will unfold while the proposed settlement is still seeking court approval. A decision is expected by late June, and either outcome could influence how plaintiffs, defense lawyers and investors view the deal’s odds of delivering the “closure” Bayer is seeking.
