Bayer AG is appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court to dismiss a significant number of lawsuits alleging its Roundup weedkiller causes non-Hodgkin lymphoma and should have carried a cancer warning. The company contends that federal law, specifically the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), preempts these state-level failure-to-warn claims because the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approved Roundup's label without requiring such a warning. A favorable ruling for Bayer could eliminate plaintiffs' strongest claims and significantly curtail the approximately 65,000 outstanding lawsuits, which have already cost the company over $10 billion.
The specific case before the Supreme Court involves a $1.25 million verdict awarded to John Durnell, a Missouri man who used Roundup for more than 20 years and subsequently developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma. While some justices, like Brett Kavanaugh, appeared sympathetic to Bayer's argument regarding label uniformity, others, such as Chief Justice John Roberts, questioned whether states should be restricted from addressing new evidence of product risks. The high court's decision, expected by early July, could affect an estimated $787 million in existing Roundup verdicts, according to Bloomberg Intelligence analyst Holly Froum.
Bayer views the Supreme Court case as a critical step in addressing its substantial litigation liabilities, having already reserved $11.25 billion (€9.6 billion) for these cases. Beyond the Supreme Court appeal, Bayer has also proposed a $7.25 billion class-action settlement to resolve a large number of current and future claims. The outcome of the Supreme Court case is crucial not only for Bayer but also for other industries, including medical devices, cosmetics, and food, that operate under similar federal regulatory frameworks. The U.S. government has also backed Bayer's position in this case.
