Roundup Lawsuit (2026): Claims, Status & Who May Qualify

Roundup is a glyphosate-based weed killer made by Monsanto, now owned by Bayer, and thousands of people allege that long-term exposure caused non-Hodgkin lymphoma. These claims are centralized in a federal multidistrict litigation, and in 2026 Bayer agreed to a proposed $7.25 billion class settlement, filed in Missouri state court, that is awaiting final court approval. This page explains the claims, the science, and the current status neutrally.

This page is part of our Mass Tort & Product Liability overview.

What Roundup is and the alleged harm

Roundup is a glyphosate-based herbicide originally developed by Monsanto, which Bayer acquired in 2018. Glyphosate is the most widely used herbicide active ingredient in the United States, applied in agriculture, on lawns, and in commercial landscaping. The lawsuits allege that prolonged or heavy exposure to Roundup caused users to develop non-Hodgkin lymphoma, a cancer of the lymphatic system, and that Monsanto knew or should have known of a potential cancer risk yet failed to place an adequate warning on the product. Some plaintiffs also allege other blood cancers. The central legal claims are typically framed as failure to warn and design defect under state product liability law. This is a description of the allegations, not a finding that Roundup caused any individual person's cancer.

Note: These are allegations being tested in court. A lawsuit reflects what a plaintiff claims, not a final determination of liability, and outcomes have differed from case to case.

What the science and regulators say

The evidence on glyphosate and cancer is genuinely contested among scientific and regulatory bodies. In March 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), part of the World Health Organization, classified glyphosate as Group 2A, meaning probably carcinogenic to humans, citing limited evidence in humans and sufficient evidence in laboratory animals. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency reached a different conclusion, stating that glyphosate is not likely to be carcinogenic to humans and that there are no risks of concern to human health when the product is used according to its label. In June 2022, however, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated the human-health portion of EPA's interim glyphosate decision and ordered the agency to revisit its cancer analysis, and EPA later withdrew that interim decision while its registration review continues. Large studies, including the federally funded Agricultural Health Study, have not found a statistically significant link between glyphosate and non-Hodgkin lymphoma, while some meta-analyses have reported an increased risk among the most heavily exposed users.

Note: Nothing here establishes that glyphosate causes cancer or that any product caused any individual's illness. Scientists and regulators continue to disagree, and the science may evolve.

The status of the Roundup litigation (as of August 2026)

Most federal Roundup cases are consolidated in In re: Roundup Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2741, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California before Judge Vince Chhabria. According to Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation statistics, the number of pending federal actions has been declining as cases resolve; the panel reported 4,511 actions pending in early January 2026 and roughly 3,900 by May 2026. Many additional cases have been filed in state courts. Over the course of the litigation, juries have returned verdicts for plaintiffs in some trials and for Monsanto and Bayer in others, and Bayer has previously announced multibillion-dollar settlement programs to resolve large numbers of claims without admitting liability. Bayer also asked the U.S. Supreme Court to decide whether federal pesticide law preempts state failure-to-warn claims. The Court agreed to hear Monsanto Co. v. Durnell (No. 24-1068), and on June 25, 2026 it ruled 7-2 for Monsanto, holding that the federal pesticide labeling statute (FIFRA) preempts state-law failure-to-warn claims that would require a different cancer warning on Roundup's label. The ruling does not decide claims that do not depend on the label, such as design-defect or manufacturing-defect theories, which may still proceed. Separately, Bayer agreed in 2026 to a proposed class settlement of $7.25 billion, paid out under declining annual caps over roughly 17 to 21 years, in a Missouri state court case, King v. Monsanto Company, No. 2622-CC00325 (22nd Judicial Circuit, City of St. Louis). The proposed class covers people exposed to Roundup in the United States before February 17, 2026 who have been or are later diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma, including future diagnoses. The court granted preliminary approval, the deadline to opt out or object passed on June 4, 2026, and a final approval (fairness) hearing is set for September 14, 2026, a date that has already been continued once and could move again. Claims cannot be submitted unless and until the court grants final approval; the official settlement website is weedkillerclass.com, run by the court-appointed administrator. Meanwhile the federal MDL continues to wind down as individual cases resolve and are dismissed.

Who may be involved

The people generally involved in this litigation are individuals who had meaningful exposure to Roundup and were later diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma. That can include agricultural workers, farmers, landscapers, groundskeepers, nursery and garden-center workers, and home gardeners who applied the product over time. Whether any particular person may have a claim depends on the specific facts, including the extent and duration of exposure, the diagnosis and its timing, and the law of the relevant state. Exposure and a diagnosis alone do not establish a claim, and many people who used Roundup never develop lymphoma. Nothing here suggests that every user has a claim or that any outcome is assured.

Deadlines and why they matter

Claims like these are subject to statutes of limitations, which are legal deadlines to file suit. These deadlines vary by state and by the type of claim, and many states measure the deadline from when a person knew or reasonably should have known that an injury may be linked to the product, a concept sometimes called the discovery rule. Because the deadline depends on your state and your facts, there is no single national filing deadline, and this page does not state any individual's deadline. Missing a deadline can permanently bar a claim, so people who believe they may be affected often act promptly rather than waiting. A licensed attorney in the relevant state can evaluate which deadline applies to a specific situation.

How to evaluate your options

If you are trying to understand your legal options, the appropriate step is to speak with a licensed attorney who handles this type of case. An attorney can assess the facts, explain the applicable law in your state, and advise whether you may have a claim; this page cannot do that. It can help to gather any records you have, such as proof of which products you used and when, employment or purchase history showing exposure, and your medical records confirming a diagnosis and its date. Most mass tort and personal injury attorneys offer a free, confidential consultation, and many work on a contingency basis, meaning a fee is generally owed only if there is a recovery. A consultation creates no obligation to file.