Bayer Offers $7.25 Billion Settlement for Roundup Cancer Claims

Chemical giant Bayer has unveiled a massive $7.25 billion settlement proposal to resolve tens of thousands of lawsuits claiming its Roundup weedkiller causes cancer. The deal would establish a 21-year compensation program for people who develop non-Hodgkin lymphoma after using the popular herbicide, but it still needs court approval and plaintiff support.

Chemical giant Bayer’s Monsanto division has unveiled a massive $7.25 billion settlement proposal designed to resolve tens of thousands of current and future cancer lawsuits linked to its popular Roundup herbicide. The company is positioning this agreement as the long-sought solution to end years of costly legal battles.

The proposed settlement, which requires court approval, would establish a compensation fund distributed over as many as 21 years. This program would provide payments to individuals claiming their non-Hodgkin lymphoma diagnosis resulted from Roundup exposure.

Compensation amounts would be determined by several factors including the claimant’s age, level of exposure, and cancer severity. Workers with occupational exposure who received aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphoma diagnoses before turning 60 could expect average payments of $165,000. Meanwhile, qualifying patients over 78 years old would receive $10,000.

The agreement aims to address most of the 65,000 existing claims currently pending in state and federal courtrooms nationwide. Additionally, it would provide compensation for individuals who used Roundup and later develop non-Hodgkin lymphoma in the coming years.

However, the level of plaintiff support remains uncertain. While Bayer states that multiple law firms representing Roundup claimants back the settlement, the company hasn’t revealed specific numbers. Bayer retains the right to withdraw from the agreement if insufficient plaintiffs participate, though they won’t specify the minimum participation threshold required.

The negotiating attorneys are seeking to represent all current and future claimants rather than guaranteeing specific client numbers for the deal. Legal experts suggest Bayer’s approach of creating a new class action to override existing cases, rather than addressing current claims directly, may face resistance from claimants or the presiding judge.

Several major law firms are still evaluating the proposal, with at least one already expressing opposition to the settlement terms.

The extended 21-year timeframe is specifically designed to capture future cancer claims and compensate people who used Roundup before February 17, 2026, and subsequently develop cancer. Bayer didn’t eliminate glyphosate—Roundup’s active ingredient that plaintiffs claim causes cancer—from residential products until 2023. Since non-Hodgkin lymphoma may have a latency period of a decade or longer, new claims could emerge for years to come.

The settlement mandates yearly public notifications to inform potential future claimants, who would have two years following their cancer diagnosis to decide on participation.

Bayer is gambling that future claimants will choose the settlement over the uncertainty of litigation. However, since individuals can decline participation, the company may still face jury trials in the future. Previous verdicts demonstrate the significant financial risks involved—while Bayer has won several recent Roundup trials, plaintiffs have secured substantial judgments, including a $2.1 billion Georgia jury award in 2025 and a $332 million California verdict in 2023.

A crucial Supreme Court case adds another layer to Bayer’s legal strategy. Oral arguments are scheduled for April 27 in a case that could determine whether Bayer can face state law lawsuits for allegedly failing to warn about Roundup’s cancer risks when federal regulations don’t mandate warning labels.

A favorable Supreme Court ruling could eliminate thousands of claims potentially worth billions in damages, as most current litigation relies on failure-to-warn theories. Even with a Supreme Court victory, plaintiffs might pursue alternative legal theories, making the settlement important for addressing other potential liability risks.

The proposed agreement doesn’t guarantee complete legal closure for Bayer. The deal could collapse without adequate support, or courts could reject it entirely. Even if finalized, there’s no mechanism to force all claimants to participate, as current and future plaintiffs retain the right to opt out and pursue individual claims.

Should both the settlement gain approval and the Supreme Court rule in Bayer’s favor, plaintiffs would face increased pressure to resolve their claims through the settlement, which could provide faster compensation, particularly if the high court makes litigation more challenging.