What Is the Roundup or Glyphosate Lawsuit?

Official sources: U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California | U.S. Supreme Court | U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) | International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)

Litigation status reviewed: August 2026

What is the Roundup lawsuit?

The Roundup litigation involves lawsuits alleging that long-term or repeated exposure to certain glyphosate-based Roundup products contributed to non-Hodgkin lymphoma and that Monsanto failed to provide adequate warnings about the alleged risk.

Depending on the individual case and state law, plaintiffs have asserted claims involving:

• Failure to warn
• Product liability
• Negligence
• Design defect
• Breach of warranty
• Other state-law claims

Monsanto, which is now owned by Bayer, has disputed allegations that Roundup causes cancer.

A diagnosis of non-Hodgkin lymphoma does not by itself establish that Roundup caused the disease.

What is Roundup?

Roundup is the brand name for a line of herbicide products historically associated with glyphosate, a broad-spectrum herbicide used to kill weeds and grasses.

Glyphosate has been used in:

• Agriculture
• Lawn and garden care
• Forestry
• Commercial landscaping
• Vegetation management

The EPA identifies glyphosate as one of the most widely used herbicides in the United States.

Roundup formulations have changed over time, and not every product currently sold under the Roundup name necessarily contains glyphosate.

The U.S. Supreme Court noted in its 2026 Monsanto v. Durnell opinion that Monsanto had phased out glyphosate-containing residential Roundup products.

What cancer is alleged in Roundup lawsuits?

The principal cancer alleged in the Roundup litigation is non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL).

Non-Hodgkin lymphoma is a group of cancers that begin in lymphocytes, a type of white blood cell involved in the immune system.

Individual cases may involve different NHL subtypes.

The central scientific question in the litigation has been whether exposure to glyphosate or glyphosate-based Roundup formulations can cause NHL in humans and, if so, whether a particular plaintiff's exposure caused that person's disease.

Is there a Roundup MDL?

Yes.

Federal Roundup product liability cases are centralized in:

In re: Roundup Products Liability Litigation

MDL No. 2741

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California

The litigation is assigned to U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria.

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation's most recent report available for this review, dated August 3, 2026, lists:

• 3,932 pending actions
• 5,322 total actions

in MDL 2741.

That means the federal MDL remains active despite years of trials, settlements, dismissals, and other case resolutions.

Is the Roundup lawsuit a class action?

No.

The federal Roundup proceeding is a multidistrict litigation (MDL), not a class action.

In an MDL:

• Individual lawsuits remain separate claims.
• Similar federal cases are coordinated before one judge.
• Common discovery and expert issues can be handled together.
• Individual cases may later be tried, settled, dismissed, or returned to their original courts.

Each plaintiff may have a different:

• Exposure history
• Cancer diagnosis
• Duration of Roundup use
• Medical history
• State law
• Damages claim

There is no automatic equal payment simply because cases are part of the same MDL.

What does the science say about glyphosate and cancer?

The scientific and regulatory picture is not uniform.

That is one of the most important facts to understand about Roundup litigation.

IARC

In 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified glyphosate as "probably carcinogenic to humans" (Group 2A).

IARC said its classification was based on:

• Limited evidence of cancer in humans.
• Sufficient evidence of cancer in experimental animals.
• Strong evidence involving genotoxicity.

IARC's evaluation is a hazard classification—it asks whether an agent is capable of causing cancer under some circumstances.

EPA

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has reached a different conclusion.

EPA states that its human-health assessment found no risks of concern to human health when glyphosate is used according to its current label and concluded that glyphosate is unlikely to be a human carcinogen.

However, EPA's glyphosate registration review remains ongoing.

EPA withdrew its 2020 interim registration review decision after a 2022 federal court ruling and states that it is working toward a final registration review decision.

EPA also published a new proposed interim registration review decision in 2026 as part of that continuing process.

Why do IARC and EPA reach different conclusions?

The agencies perform different types of evaluations and may consider evidence differently.

IARC primarily evaluates whether an exposure can cause cancer—a hazard question.

EPA evaluates pesticide risks as part of a regulatory process that considers exposure, dosage, product use, and other factors.

A substance can therefore receive an IARC hazard classification while a regulatory agency reaches a different conclusion about risk under labeled conditions of use.

That difference should not be simplified into "one agency is right and one is wrong."

It reflects different scientific and regulatory frameworks.

What have epidemiology studies found?

Research has produced mixed results.

A large prospective study from the Agricultural Health Study, published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, found no statistically significant association between glyphosate use and overall cancer or lymphoid malignancies, including NHL, in the cohort it examined.

Other researchers have reported associations between higher cumulative glyphosate-based herbicide exposure and NHL in pooled analyses or meta-analyses.

Because the epidemiologic evidence is not entirely consistent, the scientific debate over glyphosate and NHL has continued.

For an individual lawsuit, population-level studies do not automatically establish whether Roundup caused one person's cancer.

What happened in Monsanto v. Durnell in 2026?

This is the most important recent legal development in Roundup litigation.

On June 25, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Monsanto Co. v. Durnell.

The Court held that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) preempts a state-law failure-to-warn claim when that claim would require a cancer warning different from the labeling approved under federal pesticide law.

The case involved a Missouri plaintiff who alleged that approximately 20 years of Roundup use caused his non-Hodgkin lymphoma and that Monsanto should have placed a cancer warning on the product. The Supreme Court ruled in Monsanto's favor on the federal preemption issue.

Does Monsanto v. Durnell end the Roundup litigation?

No.

But it is a major development.

The decision directly affects certain state-law failure-to-warn claims based on the absence of a cancer warning from an EPA-approved Roundup label.

It does not automatically resolve every Roundup case or every possible legal theory.

Individual cases may involve:

• Different state-law claims.
• Different product formulations.
• Different alleged defects.
• Different factual records.
• Legal theories beyond failure to warn.

Courts will continue determining how the Supreme Court's ruling applies to pending and future cases.

Consumers should be cautious about older Roundup pages that describe the preemption issue as unresolved. The Supreme Court resolved that specific federal question in June 2026.

What happened in earlier Roundup trials?

Roundup litigation has produced both plaintiff and defense outcomes in state and federal courts over several years.

Some juries have found Monsanto liable and awarded substantial damages.

Other juries have ruled for Monsanto.

Several verdicts have also been reduced, appealed, or otherwise modified after trial.

That history illustrates an important point:

A verdict in one Roundup case does not establish the outcome or value of another case.

Each trial turns on its own evidence, plaintiff, exposure history, medical facts, expert testimony, and applicable law.

Has the Roundup litigation settled?

Many Roundup claims have been resolved through settlement agreements over the course of the litigation.

However, there is no single settlement that ended all Roundup litigation.

The strongest evidence of that is the current JPML docket: as of August 3, 2026, MDL 2741 still had 3,932 pending federal actions.

Individual cases may settle, proceed to trial, be dismissed, or otherwise resolve separately.

The existence of previous settlements should therefore not be interpreted as proof that every current or future claimant will receive compensation.

Is there a Roundup settlement amount?

There is no universal Roundup payout.

Potential compensation in an individual case may depend on:

• Type and severity of NHL.
• Duration and frequency of Roundup exposure.
• Medical treatment.
• Prognosis.
• Medical expenses.
• Lost income.
• Strength of causation evidence.
• Applicable state law.
• Legal claims that remain available after Monsanto v. Durnell.
• Whether the case settles or goes to trial.

Websites advertising guaranteed "average Roundup settlements" can be misleading because different claims have resolved under different circumstances.

Who may be affected by the Roundup litigation?

Potential claims have generally involved people who allege substantial exposure to glyphosate-based Roundup products followed by a diagnosis of non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

Relevant factors may include:

• Which Roundup product was used.
• Whether the product contained glyphosate.
• Length of exposure.
• Frequency of use.
• Occupational versus residential exposure.
• Whether protective equipment was used.
• Date and type of NHL diagnosis.
• Other medical risk factors.
• Applicable filing deadlines.
• Which legal theories remain available under applicable law.

Using Roundup by itself does not establish a legal claim.

What evidence may matter in a Roundup case?

Potentially relevant evidence may include:

• Medical records
• Oncology records
• Pathology reports
• NHL diagnosis records
• Employment records
• Landscaping or agricultural work records
• Purchase records
• Product photographs
• Receipts
• Records showing years and frequency of Roundup use
• Statements from coworkers or family members
• Protective equipment history
• Other pesticide exposure history

Because exposure may stretch back many years, records that help reconstruct how and when a person used Roundup can be important.

Do you need receipts to show Roundup exposure?

Not necessarily.

Receipts may help, but many people do not retain purchase records for products used years earlier.

Other evidence may help document exposure, such as:

• Work records
• Employer records
• Photographs
• Farm or landscaping records
• Product containers
• Witness statements
• Consistent histories given during medical or legal interviews

The amount and type of evidence required depend on the individual case.

What is the difference between glyphosate and Roundup?

These terms are related but not identical.

Glyphosate is an herbicide active ingredient.

Roundup is a brand name used for multiple herbicide products.

Historically, many Roundup formulations contained glyphosate along with other ingredients.

Scientific studies may evaluate glyphosate alone, while lawsuits often concern actual formulated Roundup products.

That distinction can matter when interpreting research.

Is glyphosate banned in the United States?

No.

Glyphosate remains registered for pesticide uses in the United States, subject to EPA requirements.

EPA's registration review remains ongoing, and the agency states that it is working toward a final registration review decision.

Individual states or local jurisdictions may impose additional restrictions, but there is no nationwide federal ban on glyphosate as of August 2026.

Is there a deadline to file a Roundup lawsuit?

Yes.

Product liability and personal injury claims are subject to statutes of limitation.

Deadlines vary depending on:

• State law.
• Date of diagnosis.
• When the plaintiff discovered or reasonably could have discovered the alleged connection between the disease and exposure.
• The specific claims being asserted.
• Other individual circumstances.

The fact that MDL 2741 remains open does not suspend applicable filing deadlines.

Common misconceptions

Myth: Scientists and government agencies agree that Roundup causes cancer.

Reality: They do not. IARC classifies glyphosate as probably carcinogenic to humans, while EPA states that glyphosate is unlikely to be a human carcinogen when used according to its label. Epidemiologic studies have also produced differing findings. The cancer question remains scientifically and legally contested.

Why this matters

Roundup is one of the longest-running and most visible modern product-liability litigations, which also makes it one of the easiest topics to misunderstand.

Three things can all be true at once:

• Some juries have concluded that Roundup contributed to individual plaintiffs' cancers.
• IARC has classified glyphosate as probably carcinogenic.
• EPA continues to say glyphosate is unlikely to be a human carcinogen under its regulatory assessment.

And the legal landscape changed significantly in June 2026 when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that certain state failure-to-warn claims are federally preempted.

A reliable guide needs to explain all of those facts—not choose whichever one supports a predetermined conclusion.