Roundup lawsuits dealt blow after Supreme Court backs Bayer

Bayer has won a major US Supreme Court victory that could sharply limit thousands of Roundup lawsuits over alleged cancer warning failures.

The court overturned a $1.25 million verdict awarded by a Missouri jury to a man who claimed years of exposure to glyphosate-based Roundup had caused his non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

The ruling, delivered by a 7-2 vote, backed Bayer’s argument that federal pesticide labelling rules prevent users from bringing state-law failure-to-warn claims over Roundup.

In plain terms, the court found that claimants could not argue under state law that Bayer should have added a cancer warning when the product’s label had been approved under federal pesticide rules.

The decision is expected to weaken thousands of state-level lawsuits brought against Bayer over the herbicide.

It will also be closely watched by the agricultural chemicals sector, farmers and regulators because it strengthens the role of federal labelling approvals in pesticide disputes.

Bayer has long argued that Roundup’s label was approved by the US Environmental Protection Agency without a cancer warning.

The company has faced years of litigation over Roundup since its $66 billion acquisition of Monsanto in 2016.

Following the ruling, Bayer shares rose by as much as 19%, according to Bloomberg Law, marking the company’s largest one-day move in 23 years.

Bayer welcomed the Supreme Court decision, calling it “good for science, farmers, and industries that depend on regulatory clarity for innovation”.

The company said the judgment should help contain the Roundup litigation after nearly a decade of legal battles.

It said: “The ruling should result in the dismissal of current warning-based claims and bar future failure-to-warn claims.”

Bayer said it would continue to seek final approval for a $7.25 billion settlement aimed at resolving class-action injury claims from people who allege long-term Roundup use caused non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

When the settlement was announced earlier this year, Bayer said it did not amount to an admission of liability or wrongdoing.

The company said the settlement was designed “solely to contain the litigation”.

Bayer has maintained that glyphosate-based herbicides can be used safely and are not carcinogenic.

It has pointed to findings by the US Environmental Protection Agency and the European Union, as well as EPA approval of Roundup labelling without a cancer warning.

However, campaigners criticised the ruling, arguing it would make it harder for people alleging glyphosate-related harm to bring claims.

Kayla Hancock, director of Protect Our Care’s Public Health Project, said: “Sadly, the Supreme Court agreed to give glyphosate makers a free pass to poison Americans without warning.”

She claimed the Trump administration had used Justice Department lawyers to help secure “blanket immunity” from glyphosate-related liability claims.

The judgment marks Bayer’s most significant Roundup legal victory to date and could reshape how future pesticide warning claims are brought in US courts.