A Missouri state court has pushed back a key hearing to review Bayer’s proposed $7.25 billion settlement aimed at resolving tens of thousands of lawsuits alleging that its Roundup weedkiller causes cancer. The approval hearing, initially expected in early July, is now scheduled for **August 19**, extending the timeline by roughly six weeks.
Judge Timothy Boyer of the Circuit Court in St. Louis delayed the proceedings after questions emerged over whether the proposed settlement should be reviewed in Missouri state court or transferred to federal jurisdiction. The scheduling decision came as Bayer secured a significant legal boost from the U.S. Supreme Court, which recently narrowed the scope of thousands of Roundup lawsuits centered on claims that the product’s warning label failed to adequately alert consumers to potential cancer risks.
The Supreme Court has also returned several related Roundup cases to lower courts for reconsideration in light of its latest ruling. While those cases include additional allegations—such as claims involving defective product design—the court’s decision primarily affects failure-to-warn arguments that have formed the backbone of many lawsuits against Bayer.
Bayer’s Monsanto subsidiary said the revised hearing date is not expected to meaningfully disrupt the settlement process. The company has consistently maintained that a large majority of claimants support the agreement announced earlier this year and confirmed that it remains committed to pursuing court approval.
The pharmaceutical and agricultural giant continues to face around **65,000** lawsuits across the United States from individuals who claim they developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma and other cancers after exposure to Roundup. Bayer has repeatedly rejected those allegations, arguing that decades of scientific research support the safety of glyphosate—the herbicide’s active ingredient—and do not establish a causal link between the chemical and cancer.
Introduced in February, the proposed settlement is designed to resolve most existing claims while also addressing potential future lawsuits from individuals who may later develop cancer after prior exposure to the herbicide. However, the proposal has faced resistance from dozens of objectors, who contend that it does not adequately safeguard the interests of current and future cancer victims.
Despite the Supreme Court’s recent decision, Bayer has indicated that the terms of the settlement remain unchanged. Company representatives have also argued that the ruling strengthens its position in lawsuits brought by plaintiffs who choose not to participate in the settlement, particularly because failure-to-warn allegations have historically been among the most frequently asserted—and comparatively easier to establish—legal claims.
Plaintiffs’ attorneys, however, maintain that the litigation is far from over. They argue that cases can still proceed under alternative legal theories, including allegations involving product design and other claims that were not addressed by the Supreme Court.
The impact of the ruling has already been felt in Missouri courts. Last week, one Roundup trial ended in a mistrial after a judge concluded that evidence presented to the jury relied heavily on failure-to-warn arguments that the Supreme Court has now limited.
Meanwhile, approximately **4,000** additional Roundup lawsuits consolidated in federal court remain outside the scope of the proposed settlement. The federal judge overseeing those cases has scheduled a status conference for **July 7** to assess how the Supreme Court’s latest ruling could influence the remaining litigation.
The settlement’s fate will now hinge on the August hearing, where the Missouri court will determine whether the multibillion-dollar agreement can move forward toward final approval.
