Bayer is heading into a closely watched court hearing in Missouri as it seeks final approval for a proposed $7.25 billion settlement aimed at resolving tens of thousands of U.S. lawsuits alleging that Roundup weedkiller caused cancer.
The hearing, scheduled before Judge Timothy Boyer in St. Louis, could become an important milestone in Bayer’s long-running effort to contain the legal fallout from its acquisition of Monsanto. The judge is expected to hear arguments both from attorneys supporting the settlement and from those challenging the proposed terms.
Bayer’s Monsanto unit is facing roughly 65,000 claims in state and federal courts. The lawsuits have been filed by people who say they developed cancer after using Roundup at home or while working. The proposed agreement is designed to address nearly all existing and future claims in the United States.
The settlement cannot take effect without court approval, although Boyer is not expected to make an immediate decision at the hearing.
A Long-Running Burden for Bayer
Roundup litigation has remained a major problem for Bayer since the company bought Monsanto in 2018. The legal fight has cost the company billions of dollars and has become a significant concern for investors watching Chief Executive Bill Anderson’s turnaround strategy.
Bayer reached an earlier settlement worth about $10 billion in 2020, resolving many existing cases. That agreement, however, did not eliminate the company’s exposure to claims that could emerge later.
The latest proposal represents another attempt to bring the sprawling litigation under a broader settlement framework.
Under the proposed deal, eligible people who developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma after exposure to Roundup could receive between $10,000 and $165,000. The amount would vary depending on factors including the seriousness of the cancer, the claimant’s age at diagnosis and whether exposure occurred at home or in the workplace.
Plaintiffs Split Over the Proposal
Supporters argue that the settlement offers a more certain path to compensation, particularly as the legal landscape surrounding Roundup claims has become less predictable.
Opponents take a different view. Some plaintiffs’ attorneys contend that the proposed payments are insufficient and argue that the agreement could effectively limit the ability of current and future claimants to pursue their cases individually in court.
The company maintains that the settlement is fair and has backing from attorneys representing tens of thousands of potential class members.
Glyphosate Debate Still Looms
At the heart of the controversy is glyphosate, Roundup’s key ingredient.
The International Agency for Research on Cancer, part of the World Health Organization, classified glyphosate as a probable carcinogen in 2015. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency reached a different conclusion in 2017, determining that glyphosate was not likely to cause cancer in humans at expected real-world exposure levels.
The EPA does not currently require a cancer warning on Roundup’s label and is working on an updated human-health risk assessment for glyphosate, which is expected later in 2026.
Bayer has consistently rejected allegations that Roundup causes cancer, pointing to decades of research that it says demonstrate the safety of glyphosate.
The company also received a significant boost while the settlement was being negotiated when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in its favor over Roundup’s warning-label requirements, weakening a key argument used in many of the lawsuits.
For Bayer, the Missouri hearing is therefore about more than one settlement. It is another test of whether the company can finally bring one of the most persistent legal problems inherited through the Monsanto acquisition closer to an end.
