Bayer’s attempt to draw a line under years of Roundup litigation is already colliding with resistance from inside the courtroom.
A proposed $7.25 billion settlement aimed at resolving thousands of lawsuits tied to the weedkiller has triggered its first organized legal challenge, with attorneys representing 13 cancer patients asking a Missouri court to reject the agreement and arguing the entire dispute should instead be handled in federal court.
The challenge escalates pressure on Bayer just months after the company unveiled the sweeping settlement plan, designed to settle the bulk of claims alleging that Roundup exposure caused cancers including non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
The attorneys opposing the agreement accuse Bayer and the lawyers who negotiated the settlement of crafting what they described as a coordinated arrangement that unfairly limits the rights of future plaintiffs while enriching class counsel through massive legal fees estimated at roughly $675 million.
Their filings argue the Missouri proceeding was never intended to fully litigate claims, but rather to create a mechanism for managing Bayer’s long-running legal exposure.
The settlement was first introduced in February through a Missouri state court class action. Circuit Judge Timothy Boyer granted preliminary approval in March and is expected to decide whether the agreement receives final approval in July.
Bayer inherited the Roundup litigation storm after acquiring Monsanto in 2018. Since then, the company has faced tens of thousands of lawsuits across the United States from people who claim prolonged use of the herbicide caused cancer. Bayer has consistently denied those allegations, maintaining that extensive scientific research supports the safety of glyphosate, Roundup’s core ingredient.
Lawyers backing the settlement argue the deal offers certainty for claimants at a time when future legal rulings could narrow plaintiffs’ options. Chris Seeger, one of the lead negotiators, defended the agreement and dismissed the objections as an effort to delay proceedings.
Bayer also rejected the latest challenge, saying the Missouri court is the proper venue because the vast majority of Roundup claims have been filed there. The company said it still expects the settlement to survive judicial scrutiny.
But opposition appears to be growing.
Additional objections are expected ahead of the June deadline for plaintiffs to opt out of the settlement. One major plaintiffs’ firm representing around 2,000 Roundup clients has already indicated it plans to file further objections on behalf of many of its customers.
Critics of the agreement argue that the settlement’s opt-out procedures are excessively restrictive and could effectively trap claimants inside the deal even if they want to continue pursuing lawsuits independently.
The move to shift the case into federal court is particularly unusual because such transfers are typically requested by defendants, not plaintiffs. The objectors contend they are functioning as the real defendants because the settlement itself threatens to limit their legal rights.
Their filings leaned heavily on remarks previously made by U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria, who oversees thousands of consolidated Roundup cases in federal court. During an April hearing, Chhabria openly questioned both the legality of the proposed settlement and the speed with which it advanced through Missouri state court.
Even with mounting criticism, Bayer continues to pursue broad support from plaintiffs’ firms, hoping to secure near-total participation before finalizing the agreement. The company has already spent roughly $10 billion since 2020 resolving earlier waves of Roundup litigation, yet the lawsuits have continued to pile up.
