Bayer’s Proposed Roundup Settlement Violates Constitution, New Legal Filing Claims

By Carey Gillam
Published May 22, 2026 on The New Lede

Bayer’s proposed $7.25 billion class action settlement is a “sweetheart deal” that violates the US Constitution by running “roughshod over basic due process rights, according to a court filing that seeks to undo the nationwide program.

The objections, filed in Missouri’s Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, come in response to the Bayer and a group of plaintiffs’ attorneys in February. That filing was followed by a “notice of removal” that seeks to shift the case to federal court, where its future could be in jeopardy.

Bayer is hoping that the settlement deal will resolve tens of thousands of lawsuits brought by people suffering from cancer they blame on exposure to glyphosate herbicides, such as Roundup. But it has drawn criticism from several legal observers since it was announced and hastily granted preliminary approval by a Missouri judge.

Critics say the structure of the deal provides a rich payout of $675 million in fees to the lawyers helping promote the deal, but paltry payments for the cancer sufferers who make up the class. The settlement would include people currently suing the company and also Roundup users who develop non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) in the future.

Moreover, Bayer, which acquired Monsanto and its glyphosate herbicides brands in 2018, could continue selling the products without cancer warnings.

“It would reward Bayer and Monsanto for its past deeds and give them the green light to have Roundup sprayed everywhere on everything and everybody …,” The new court filing states. “Approval of the settlement would be to free one of the nation’s most notorious, long-term polluters from jury trials and real liability for their misdeeds.”

The objection was filed May 21 by lawyers from two plaintiffs’ firms, including lawyer Ashley Keller, who last month argued before the US Supreme Court against Monsanto in a case that Monsanto hopes will garner a ruling that limits future lawsuits against it.

“Monsanto and class counsel walked into court hand-in-hand to ram through a deal that gifts $675 million to class lawyers while leaving present and future cancer victims with a pittance,” Keller told The New Lede.

In the objections to the class action, Keller and lawyers from the Tennessee firm of Frazer PLC also allege that the deal is structured to be “comically difficult for injured parties to exercise their constitutionally guaranteed option to opt out of these proceedings.” The settlement plan is designed to include both current and future Roundup users who develop cancer unless they go through a series of detailed steps to affirmatively opt out of the program.

“The class seeks to bind a group of millions upon millions of people, many who have not been conceived and millions who are children, to the terms of the settlement via a so-called “futures” subclass reaching anyone who “saw” anyone using Roundup. Such a class is unconstitutional and unprecedented in the annals of U.S. jurisprudence,” the May 21 court filing states.

In a statement responding to the objections, Bayer said it is common for objections to be filed in a proposed nationwide settlement and they would be considered at a final approval hearing set for July.

 ”We remain confident that the long-term and well-financed proposed class settlement plan, which is supported by plaintiff law firms representing thousands of potential class members, is fair to all claimants, and warrants approval by the court,” the company said.

Alleging a laundering “scheme”

In the subsequent May 22 filing in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Keller seeks to “remove” the case from state court to federal court jurisdiction. The hope is that the matter would then be sent to federal court in California where US District Judge Vince Chhabria has been overseeing the nationwide Roundup litigation since 2016.

Chhabria is on record as questioning the ethics of the settlement, calling it “filthy”, “mind-boggling,” “legally problematic,” and plagued with “major problems. But Chhabria has no jurisdiction over a state court matter.

“This class action was filed not to litigate active claims, but to launder a liability-management scheme through the courts,” the removal filing states.

In seeking the removal to federal court, Keller is representing a group of people who have lawsuits pending alleging they developed cancer from exposure to the company’s herbicides. While typically considered plaintiffs in the litigation, Keller is seeking to convince the court his clients should be viewed as defendants with respect to the settlement they are objecting to.

The transfer to federal court is dependent upon the court agreeing to see the objecting plaintiffs as defendants with respect to the settlement.  It makes a novel argument that may not work, some legal observers said.

The removal notice argues that the interests of Monsanto and the plaintiffs’ lawyers agreeing to the settlement make them “entirely aligned,” making them “settling parties” and “partners” in the litigation.

“The only parties who oppose the relief the Settling Parties seek are the Objector Defendants,” the notice of removal states.

“Each developed Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma after using Roundup for years. And each has a right to pursue their claims against Monsanto in court. But the proposed settlement, if approved, will bind them to unconscionably low compensation for their injuries unless they (and thousands of similarly situated Roundup victims) successfully navigate the outrageous opt-out procedures the Settling Parties have asked the Missouri trial court to bless,” the filing states.

In its statement, Bayer said the removal notice has no merit. “The class is properly before a Missouri state court where the overwhelming majority of remaining claims have been filed,” the company said.

Bayer and the lawyers who helped structure the deal say it is the best way to ensure that the company does not push the herbicide business into bankruptcy and that farmers will continue to have access to the company’s popular glyphosate weed killers and to resolve claims from people who may never get a trial for their cases due to clogged courts.

Chris Seeger, one of the lawyers who helped craft the deal with Bayer, said the removal notice is “a baseless delay tactic that should be promptly denied.” 

He said that the settlement is the clearest path to “guaranteed compensation for cancer victims who have waited more than a decade for justice,” adding that his and other law firms backing the deal “remain confident in this agreement.”

Supreme Court decision looms

Bayer and the plaintiffs’ lawyers supporting the settlement have been leveraging the Supreme Court case to pressure plaintiffs not to opt out of the settlement. The deadline for opting out of the settlement is June 4, while a Supreme Court decision is not expected until late June.

The Supreme Court will be ruling on Monsanto’s argument that under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), juries in state courts cannot hold the company liable for failing to warn of a cancer risk if the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has not found such a risk exists and has not required such a warning. The EPA’s position is that glyphosate is “unlikely” to be carcinogenic.

If plaintiffs opt out and then the Supreme Court rules in Monsanto’s favor, those plaintiffs could find it much more difficult to pursue lawsuits against the company and would miss out on settlement awards.

A hearing on final approval of the deal is set for July, after the Supreme Court is expected to rule.

Seeger said the prospect of a Supreme Court decision that could “wipe out Roundup failure-to-warn claims and the looming risk of a Bayer bankruptcy” make the settlement the best option for Roundup plaintiffs.

Read the original article on The New Lede »

Bayer Says No Plans to Restructure Despite Litigation Threat

By ee Hickman and Tom Polansek
Published June 2, 2026 on Reuters

Bayer has no plans to spin off Monsanto, a representative said on Tuesday, even as the company faces an avalanche ‌of lawsuits over its Roundup weedkiller.

The company representative, speaking to Reuters on the sidelines of ‌the Wall Street Journal’s Global Food Forum, said that restructuring the company could be a viable option but was not currently planned, with the company focused instead on improving its performance and handling the wave of litigation it faces.

On stage at the forum, Bayer Chief Executive Bill Anderson reiterated the threat that Roundup lawsuits, which the company says involve around 100,000 plaintiffs, pose to the German drug-making and crop science giant’s production of the glyphosate-based ‌pesticide.

“If there’s not a solution to ⁠the litigation problem on glyphosate, there won’t be American-produced glyphosate,” Anderson said.

Bayer is the only company producing glyphosate in the U.S. but the farming sector also imports ⁠large volumes of generic versions of the pesticide from China.

Bayer acquired Roundup as part of its $63 billion purchase of agrochemical company Monsanto in 2018, and with it litigation from consumers who say the company failed to warn them that Roundup’s active ingredient could cause cancer.

The company has sought to stem the tide of litigation in ‌the United States through a multipronged strategy including a massive settlement, and a state-by-state effort to change the legal landscape surrounding its liability.

The company is also behind a case before the Supreme Court appealing a jury verdict in Missouri state court awarding $1.25 million to a man who said he was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma after years of exposure to glyphosate in Roundup.

And elsewhere, the company has proposed a $7.25 billion settlement ‌that would end most of the lawsuits pending against it, although some plaintiffs are objecting to the deal.

In state legislatures, a dozen Bayer-supported bills have been introduced to prevent people from suing pesticide manufacturers for not warning them that their ‌products could cause cancer or other illnesses, though they have only had success in a few states, including North Dakota, Kentucky and Georgia.

Bayer’s most recent setback in its campaign for some legal immunity came from Congress in April, when the House passed a version of the Farm Bill that ‌strips away a provision supported by the company that would have shielded pesticide companies from some lawsuits.

The Senate has not yet taken up the bill.

Read the original article on Reuters »

Brazil Prosecutors Sue to Ban Weed Killer Glyphosate

By Ana Mano
Published May 26, 2026 on Insurance Journal

Brazilian prosecutors are suing health agency Anvisa and the federal government to ban the use of top-selling weed killer glyphosate, dealing a potential blow to chemical companies in Latin America’s largest economy.

A special division of the prosecutor’s office tasked with protecting workers’ rights filed a lawsuit seeking to ban the registration of products containing glyphosate and its derivatives. The suit also seeks to prohibit authorization for the production, export, import, sale and use of the active ingredient and its compounds, citing risks to human life, occupational health and the workplace environment.

An effective cancellation of glyphosate’s registration in Brazil would hit companies such as Germany’s Bayer AG and others that have used the active ingredient in some formulations since its patent expired 2000.

Bayer said in a written statement that scientists from regulatory authorities worldwide have repeatedly concluded that glyphosate can be used safely and is not carcinogenic, adding that it is confident that “the scientific facts will prevail during the proceedings.”

Anvisa reevaluated potential risks associated with glyphosate and in 2020 maintained registration of the active ingredient in Brazil, with restrictions on its use, the regulator said Monday in an emailed statement.

The Brazilian Attorney General’s Office, which represents the federal government in courts, didn’t reply to a request for comment.

The Brazilian lawsuit comes months after the Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology journal retracted a decades-old paper that said the use of glyphosate didn’t pose health risks after “potential conflicts of interest of the authors” became clear. The report specifically referenced Bayer’s Roundup, which is typically used in large-scale agriculture and until recently in lawn and gardening products in the U.S.

The Brazilian prosecutors said the now-retracted study was used by regulatory agencies worldwide as a reference to allow registration and sale of glyphosate. The lawsuit also cites studies showing residues of the substance in drinking water as posing a threat to human health.

Anvisa said in its statement that the now-withdrawn article “did not play a central role in the reevaluation of glyphosate.”

Bayer said that the paper in question is “a review article of properly conducted studies” with no original data. It added that the European Union didn’t consider it in its most recent approval process while U.S. and Canadian authorities have stated that the retraction has no impact on their assessment.

In March 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans.”

“It is a matter of public health,” Brazilian prosecutor Leomar Daroncho said in a statement. “The competent authority must take steps to reassess the risks when there is an alert or warning against the use of pesticides from international organizations responsible for health.”

MAHA Backlash

The widely used weed killer has also emerged as a flash point in US politics, riling supporters of Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s “Make America Healthy Again” movement who are frustrated that Trump administration lawyers are asking the Supreme Court to shield Bayer from liability for a “failure to warn” about glyphosate’s harmful effects.

A large number of lawsuits have been filed in the US alleging that the use of glyphosate, including in Roundup-branded herbicide products manufactured by Bayer, can cause non-Hodgkin lymphoma cancer and multiple myeloma.

The German company is counting on the Supreme Court to pare down those lawsuits and help corral the decade-long litigation that has cost the company more than $10 billion. As of end-2025, Bayer’s provision and liabilities for glyphosate litigation totaled $11.3 billion.

In public disclosures, Bayer says there is no reason for safety concerns in connection with glyphosate products.

In 2016, Bayer agreed to acquire US-based Monsanto, the company that popularized the use of glyphosate in the 1970s. Eventually, the active ingredient became the world’s most used substance for weed control. In 1996, Monsanto launched a genetically modified soy designed to thrive even when sprayed with the herbicide. Subsequently corn, cotton and canola seeds were engineered with the technology.

In 2023, Brazilian labor prosecutors requested a court order to ban the use of pesticide ingredient atrazine, but no final decision was made.

Read the original article on Insurance Journal »

Read more from the "In the Weeds" Series »