Roundup Litigation: Understanding the $2 Billion Verdict and Subsequent Reduction
In 2019, the Roundup (Monsanto) litigation saw a landmark moment when a jury awarded a couple $2 billion in damages, only to have the amount later reduced to $87 million. This case highlights the complexities and challenges surrounding claims that the widely used herbicide Roundup causes cancer, specifically non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL). This blog post will delve into the details of this specific case, the broader context of the Roundup litigation, and what it means for individuals who believe they have been harmed by exposure to glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup.
The $2 Billion Verdict: Pilliod v. Monsanto
In May 2019, a jury in Oakland, California, awarded Alva and Alberta Pilliod $2 billion in punitive damages, in addition to $55 million in compensatory damages, after they both developed NHL following prolonged Roundup use. The Pilliods had used Roundup for approximately 30 years for residential landscaping, and the jury concluded that this exposure was a “substantial factor” in their cancer diagnoses. This verdict marked the third consecutive trial loss for Monsanto (now owned by Bayer) in California.
The jury found that Monsanto was liable because Roundup was defectively designed, the company failed to warn consumers about the cancer risks, and Monsanto acted negligently. Internal Monsanto documents revealed the company had “bullied” scientists and “ghostwritten” research to defend the safety of glyphosate.
The Reduction to $87 Million
However, the victory was short-lived. In July 2019, the judge reduced the total award to $87 million. The judge reduced the punitive damages to $70 million and the compensatory damages for pain and suffering to $17 million. While the judge acknowledged that there was enough evidence to support the jury’s conclusion that Roundup was a substantial factor in causing the Pilliods’ NHL, she deemed the original punitive damages excessive.
Why the Reduction?
Judges often reduce excessive jury awards, particularly punitive damages, to comply with constitutional limits. The Supreme Court has suggested that punitive damages should generally not exceed a single-digit ratio to compensatory damages. This principle aims to ensure that punitive damages are not arbitrary or disproportionate to the harm suffered by the plaintiff.
The Broader Context of Roundup Litigation
The Pilliod case is just one chapter in the ongoing Roundup litigation saga. As of January 2024, approximately 165,000 Roundup lawsuits had been filed against Bayer. These lawsuits allege that exposure to Roundup causes NHL and other serious illnesses, and that Monsanto failed to adequately warn users about these risks.
- Settlements: Bayer has paid nearly $11 billion to settle a portion of these lawsuits. In 2020, Bayer agreed to a $10.9 billion settlement to resolve approximately 100,000 claims. This settlement included funds for both pending cases and future claims.
-
Verdicts: While Bayer has won some trials, plaintiffs have also secured significant verdicts. Some notable verdicts include:
- January 2024: A Philadelphia jury ordered Bayer to pay $2.25 billion to a man who developed NHL after using Roundup for 20 years. This verdict was later reduced to $400 million.
- October 2023: A San Diego jury awarded $332 million to a cancer patient who claimed Monsanto didn’t adequately warn of Roundup’s risks.
- November 2023: A jury in Missouri awarded $1.56 billion to four plaintiffs who claimed Roundup caused them or their spouse to develop NHL. This verdict was later reduced to $611 million.
- Ongoing Litigation: Despite the settlements, thousands of cases remain active. As of August 2025, there were approximately 4,400 pending actions in the Roundup MDL (Multidistrict Litigation) in California.
The Science Behind the Claims
The central issue in the Roundup litigation is whether glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, causes cancer. The scientific community is divided on this issue.
- International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC): In 2015, IARC classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans.”
- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): The EPA maintains that glyphosate is “not likely” to cause cancer in humans.
- University of Washington Study: A 2019 analysis by University of Washington researchers found that exposure to glyphosate increases the risk of NHL by 41%.
This scientific uncertainty adds complexity to the litigation, as plaintiffs must prove that their cancer was caused by Roundup exposure.
Statute of Limitations
It’s important to be aware of the statute of limitations, which sets a deadline for filing a lawsuit. The statute of limitations for Roundup lawsuits varies by state, typically ranging from one to three years after the date of diagnosis, the death of a loved one, or when you found out about the connection between Roundup and your cancer. Missing this deadline means losing the right to sue.
What to Do If You Believe You’ve Been Harmed
If you or a loved one has been exposed to Roundup and diagnosed with NHL or another cancer, it’s crucial to take the following steps:
- Seek Medical Attention: Get a proper diagnosis and treatment plan from a qualified medical professional.
- Consult with a Lawyer: Contact an experienced Roundup lawyer to discuss your legal options. A lawyer can evaluate your case, explain your rights, and help you navigate the complex legal process.
- Gather Evidence: Collect any evidence that supports your claim, such as medical records, Roundup purchase receipts, and employment history.
Conclusion
The Roundup litigation is a complex and evolving legal battle with significant implications for both Bayer and individuals who believe they have been harmed by Roundup exposure. The $2 billion verdict in 2019, later reduced to $87 million, illustrates the challenges and uncertainties involved in these cases. While there have been substantial settlements and verdicts, thousands of cases remain pending, and the scientific debate over glyphosate’s safety continues. If you believe you have a claim, it’s essential to seek legal advice promptly to protect your rights.