Despite spending more than $11 billion to resolve Roundup cancer lawsuits since 2020, Bayer still faces roughly 61,000 active claims from people who say the glyphosate-based herbicide gave them non-Hodgkin lymphoma. The company’s original $10.9 billion settlement, announced in June 2020, was designed to close out approximately 100,000 cases — but tens of thousands of claimants either opted out, filed later, or never reached terms. Now Bayer is attempting a second massive resolution: a proposed $7.25 billion class settlement announced on February 17, 2026, which would cover both current plaintiffs and anyone diagnosed with NHL within the next 16 years. The financial toll on Bayer has been staggering. The company has spent over $16 billion total on Roundup litigation when you factor in settlements, jury verdicts, legal costs, and reserves.
And the legal uncertainty is far from over. The U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments on April 27, 2026, in Durnell v. Monsanto, a case that could determine whether federal pesticide law preempts the state-level failure-to-warn claims that have been the backbone of every Roundup verdict.
Table of Contents
- Why Do Tens of Thousands of Roundup Cancer Claims Remain After Bayer’s $10.9 Billion Settlement?
- What Does Bayer’s New $7.25 Billion Class Settlement Actually Offer Claimants?
- Durnell v. Monsanto — The Supreme Court Case That Could End Roundup Litigation
- Opt Out or Stay In — What Roundup Claimants Need to Decide Before June 4, 2026
- Why Bayer’s “Close to 100%” Participation Requirement Could Unravel the Deal
- Bayer’s Post-Glyphosate Future and CropKey
- What Comes Next for Roundup Litigation in 2026 and Beyond
- Frequently Asked Questions
Why Do Tens of Thousands of Roundup Cancer Claims Remain After Bayer’s $10.9 Billion Settlement?
When Bayer announced its $10.9 billion settlement in June 2020, the figure sounded like a closing chapter. It wasn’t. The deal was structured to resolve roughly 100,000 pending lawsuits, but it did not include a mechanism to prevent future claims. As a result, new plaintiffs continued filing. Bayer attempted to create a separate class settlement in 2021 that would have funneled future claimants into a science panel process rather than courtroom litigation, but federal judge Vince Chhabria rejected that proposal, calling its restrictions on future plaintiffs’ rights problematic. That left the door wide open for new cases.
As of early 2026, approximately 61,000 active Roundup lawsuits remain pending across federal and state courts. In the federal mdl 2741, consolidated in the Northern District of California, roughly 3,887 to 4,511 cases are still on the docket as of January through March 2026. But the federal MDL represents only a fraction of the total. Significant numbers of cases sit in state courts, particularly in Missouri — where Monsanto was headquartered and where juries have historically been sympathetic to plaintiffs. To put this in perspective, even after paying out $11 billion, Bayer has resolved only about two-thirds of its known exposure. The remaining third represents claimants who either rejected earlier settlement offers, filed after the 2020 deal closed, or are still negotiating terms.
What Does Bayer’s New $7.25 Billion Class Settlement Actually Offer Claimants?
On February 17, 2026, Bayer proposed a new $7.25 billion class settlement that takes a different approach from the 2020 deal. Rather than negotiating case by case, this settlement creates a class action structure. The eligible class includes anyone exposed to Roundup before February 17, 2026, who either has a current NHL diagnosis or receives one within the next 16 years. That future-claims window is significant — it means someone who used Roundup in 2015 and gets diagnosed in 2035 would still be covered, assuming the deal survives judicial review. Individual payouts are expected to range from $10,000 to $165,000, depending on factors like the claimant’s level of exposure to Roundup and their age at diagnosis. The 22nd Judicial Circuit court of Missouri granted preliminary approval on March 4, 2026, and Bayer must deposit $500 million into a settlement fund within 10 days of that approval.
However, there is a critical catch: Bayer can terminate the entire agreement if participation falls short. The company has said it requires uptake “very close to 100%,” which sets a high bar. A group of lawyers representing roughly 20,000 plaintiffs opposed the settlement at the preliminary approval stage, arguing the payouts are too low given the severity of the injuries involved. They were overruled, but their opposition signals that hitting Bayer’s participation threshold may be difficult. If you are a current Roundup plaintiff with a strong individual case — say, decades of occupational exposure and a clear NHL diagnosis — accepting a settlement in the $10,000 to $165,000 range might represent a significant discount compared to what juries have awarded in bellwether trials. On the other hand, if you have a weaker case or face years of additional litigation, the certainty of a guaranteed payout has real value.
Durnell v. Monsanto — The Supreme Court Case That Could End Roundup Litigation
The most consequential development in the Roundup saga may not be a settlement at all, but a Supreme Court case. In Durnell v. Monsanto, the justices agreed to review whether the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act — known as FIFRA — preempts state-law failure-to-warn claims against pesticide manufacturers. If the Court rules that it does, plaintiffs would effectively lose their primary legal theory: that Monsanto should have warned consumers that Roundup could cause cancer. Oral arguments are scheduled for April 27, 2026, with a decision expected by the end of the June 2026 term.
Solicitor General John Sauer filed a brief supporting Bayer’s preemption argument, stating that the EPA’s scientific determinations on glyphosate safety should control over state tort claims. This matters because the EPA has maintained that glyphosate is not likely to be carcinogenic to humans, even as the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer classified it as “probably carcinogenic” in 2015. A circuit split currently exists on the issue: the Third Circuit held in Schaffner that FIFRA does preempt state claims, while the Ninth Circuit, Eleventh Circuit, and Missouri appellate courts have disagreed. For claimants, this creates a genuine dilemma. If the Supreme Court sides with Bayer, pending cases could be dismissed or severely weakened. That reality gives the $7.25 billion settlement a different complexion — what might look like an inadequate offer today could look generous in hindsight if the legal landscape shifts in Bayer’s favor by late June.
Opt Out or Stay In — What Roundup Claimants Need to Decide Before June 4, 2026
The opt-out deadline for Bayer’s proposed $7.25 billion class settlement is June 4, 2026, giving class members a 90-day window from preliminary approval to decide whether to remain in the settlement or preserve their right to pursue individual litigation. This is not a decision to make lightly, and the timing creates an uncomfortable overlap with the Supreme Court’s consideration of Durnell. Staying in the settlement means accepting a payout in the $10,000 to $165,000 range and giving up the right to sue Bayer individually over Roundup-related NHL. For many claimants — particularly those with limited documented exposure, those who are elderly or ill, or those without the financial resources to sustain years of individual litigation — this may be the pragmatic choice.
The money is real, Bayer has already deposited $500 million, and the process has a defined timeline with a final fairness hearing set for July 9, 2026. Opting out preserves the right to pursue a potentially larger individual verdict or settlement, but it carries substantial risk. Individual litigation is expensive, time-consuming, and uncertain — and if the Supreme Court rules in Bayer’s favor on preemption, opted-out claimants could find themselves with no viable legal path at all. Claimants weighing this decision should consult with their own attorneys and consider their personal circumstances, the strength of their individual evidence, and their tolerance for risk. Lawyers representing the 20,000 plaintiffs who opposed the settlement clearly believe their clients can do better, but that belief is a bet, not a guarantee.
Why Bayer’s “Close to 100%” Participation Requirement Could Unravel the Deal
Bayer has built a kill switch into its $7.25 billion settlement: the company can walk away if participation rates are not “very close to 100%.” This is an unusually aggressive threshold for a mass tort class settlement, and the opposition from attorneys representing roughly 20,000 plaintiffs suggests it may be difficult to achieve. If a significant number of claimants opt out by June 4, 2026, Bayer could terminate the agreement entirely, leaving everyone — including those who wanted to participate — back at square one. This dynamic creates a collective action problem. Each individual claimant has an incentive to stay in if they believe others will too, ensuring the deal goes through. But each claimant also has an incentive to opt out if they believe their individual case is worth more than the settlement offers.
If too many claimants follow the second impulse, the deal collapses and nobody gets the settlement money. Bayer, meanwhile, benefits from the uncertainty: the mere existence of the participation threshold puts pressure on plaintiff attorneys to encourage their clients to accept. There is also a question of what “very close to 100%” means in practice. Bayer has not publicly defined a specific percentage. In the 2020 settlement, the company reportedly required 90% to 95% participation for certain tranches. If the bar is similar here, the opposition of 20,000 plaintiffs out of 61,000 active cases — roughly a third — could be enough to kill the deal, assuming those plaintiffs follow their lawyers’ advice to opt out.
Bayer’s Post-Glyphosate Future and CropKey
Regardless of how the litigation resolves, Bayer is already planning for a future beyond glyphosate. The company has filed for regulatory approval of CropKey, a new herbicide with the active ingredient icafolin-methyl, in the United States, European Union, Brazil, and Canada.
The move signals that Bayer recognizes glyphosate’s legal and reputational liabilities are not going away, even if the Supreme Court provides a favorable ruling on preemption. For farmers who have relied on Roundup for decades, the transition to a new product line will raise its own questions about efficacy, cost, and safety data — but it also represents Bayer’s clearest acknowledgment that the Roundup era is winding down.
What Comes Next for Roundup Litigation in 2026 and Beyond
The next four months will likely determine the trajectory of Roundup litigation for the foreseeable future. The June 4 opt-out deadline, the July 9 fairness hearing, and the Supreme Court’s expected ruling in Durnell by late June create a compressed window in which billions of dollars and tens of thousands of claims will be resolved — or thrown back into uncertainty. If the settlement survives and the Supreme Court does not grant preemption, the deal will represent the largest product liability class settlement in recent history.
If the Court does grant preemption, the settlement may become moot as Bayer’s remaining legal exposure shrinks dramatically. And if the settlement collapses due to insufficient participation, a new round of bellwether trials and individual negotiations will begin, extending this litigation well into the next decade. For claimants, the only certainty is that waiting passively is the worst strategy. The decisions made in the next 90 days will shape outcomes for years to come.
Frequently Asked Questions
How much money could I receive from the Roundup class settlement?
Individual payouts under the proposed $7.25 billion settlement are expected to range from $10,000 to $165,000, depending on your level of Roundup exposure and your age at the time of your NHL diagnosis. Higher exposure and younger age at diagnosis generally correspond to larger awards.
What is the deadline to opt out of the Roundup class settlement?
The opt-out deadline is June 4, 2026, which is 90 days from the March 4, 2026 preliminary approval date. If you do not opt out by this date, you will be bound by the settlement terms and cannot pursue individual litigation against Bayer for Roundup-related NHL.
Who is eligible for the new Roundup settlement?
The eligible class includes anyone exposed to Roundup before February 17, 2026, who has a current diagnosis of non-Hodgkin lymphoma or who receives an NHL diagnosis within the next 16 years.
What happens if the Supreme Court rules in Bayer’s favor in Durnell v. Monsanto?
If the Court finds that FIFRA preempts state failure-to-warn claims, it could effectively eliminate the legal basis for most Roundup cancer lawsuits. Pending cases could be dismissed, and claimants who opted out of the settlement would lose their ability to pursue individual claims. The ruling is expected by late June 2026.
Can Bayer cancel the settlement?
Yes. Bayer has reserved the right to terminate the $7.25 billion settlement if participation rates are not “very close to 100%.” If too many claimants opt out, Bayer could walk away from the deal entirely.
Is Bayer still selling Roundup?
Bayer removed glyphosate-based Roundup from the U.S. residential consumer market in 2023, though glyphosate products remain available for agricultural and commercial use. The company is also seeking regulatory approval for CropKey, a new herbicide using the active ingredient icafolin-methyl, as a glyphosate alternative.