How Bayer Defends Roundup Lawsuits — And Why Plaintiffs Keep Winning
Bayer AG inherited massive Roundup liability when it acquired Monsanto in 2018 for $63 billion. Since then it has lost or settled hundreds of trials while spending billions on defense. Understanding how Bayer argues its case — and why juries keep rejecting those arguments — reveals why this litigation remains one of the most significant corporate liability battles in American history.
In This Article
The EPA Safety Argument and Its Limits
Bayer's primary defense is that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has repeatedly concluded that glyphosate is 'not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.' Bayer argues that plaintiffs cannot prevail when the nation's top regulatory body approves the product. However, courts have consistently held that EPA approval does not preempt state tort law failure-to-warn claims — meaning companies can still be sued for failing to warn consumers of risks that the company was aware of, even if regulators did not require a warning.
Federal Preemption: Why Courts Rejected It
Bayer attempted to have thousands of cases dismissed by arguing that federal FIFRA (Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act) law preempted state tort claims. The Supreme Court declined to hear Bayer's preemption petition in 2021, leaving in place lower court rulings that FIFRA does not preempt state failure-to-warn claims. This was a decisive blow to Bayer's litigation strategy and opened the door for tens of thousands of additional claims to proceed.
Think Roundup caused your cancer?
Find out if you may qualify — free case review.
Check Eligibility arrow_forwardHow the Monsanto Papers Sank Bayer's Credibility
Perhaps the most damaging element of Roundup litigation has been the 'Monsanto Papers' — internal company documents revealed through discovery showing Monsanto employees discussing how to influence scientific publications, ghostwrite safety studies, and manage the IARC review process. Emails showing executives strategizing about 'controlling the science' have been presented to multiple juries and proved devastating. Courts in California, Missouri, and elsewhere have permitted these documents into evidence over Bayer's objections.
Why Juries Keep Siding With Plaintiffs
The combination of strong scientific evidence, damaging internal documents, sympathetic plaintiffs, and an aggressive defense posture has resulted in verdicts for plaintiffs in the majority of completed Roundup trials. Verdicts have ranged from tens of millions to hundreds of millions of dollars. While Bayer continues to appeal and has set aside over $16 billion for settlements, trial outcomes consistently signal that juries believe Monsanto concealed known risks from consumers.
Frequently Asked Questions
Has Bayer ever won a Roundup trial?expand_more
Bayer has won some trials, particularly when plaintiffs had weak exposure evidence or co-morbidities that complicated causation. However, plaintiffs have prevailed in the majority of trials that have gone to verdict, and the high-profile wins have been far larger than Bayer's victories.
Will Bayer go bankrupt because of Roundup lawsuits?expand_more
Bayer has signaled it does not intend to seek bankruptcy protection, unlike Johnson & Johnson in the talcum powder litigation. Bayer set aside approximately $16 billion to resolve claims and continues to defend and settle cases individually. However, if the company faces unexpected liability, this could change.
Does Bayer's continued EPA approval make it harder to win?expand_more
No. Courts have repeatedly ruled that EPA approval under FIFRA does not bar state tort claims for failure to warn. The science presented by plaintiff experts — including IARC's carcinogenicity classification — is admissible regardless of the EPA's position, and juries are free to accept the plaintiffs' experts over Bayer's.
SuperLawsuits Editorial Team
Reviewed by licensed attorneys in our network