The Roundup class action lawsuits represent one of the most significant mass tort litigations in U.S. history, centering on allegations that Bayer AG's glyphosate-based herbicide causes non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) and other cancers. Since the first major verdict in 2018 (Dewayne Johnson v. Monsanto), which awarded 289million(laterreducedto289million(laterreducedto20.5 million), tens of thousands of plaintiffs have filed claims against Bayer, culminating in an $11 billion global settlement proposal in 2020. However, the legal landscape remains complex, with ongoing appeals, new scientific studies, and shifting court rulings affecting claimants' ability to recover compensation. This analysis examines whether individuals can still file claims, the evolving scientific and legal standards, and the procedural hurdles that may impact potential recoveries.

II. The Science Behind Glyphosate and Cancer Claims

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified glyphosate as a "probable human carcinogen" in 2015, triggering waves of litigation. However, the EPA and European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) maintain that glyphosate is unlikely to pose a cancer risk at typical exposure levels. This scientific divide has led to battles over admissible expert testimony, with courts applying the Daubert standard to assess whether plaintiffs' experts can reliably link NHL to Roundup. Recent studies, including a 2023 meta-analysis in Environmental Health Perspectives, continue to fuel debate, meaning future claimants must demonstrate both medical causation and exposure history to succeed.

III. Bayer's $11 Billion Settlement: What It Covered

In June 2020, Bayer announced a $10.9 billion settlement to resolve approximately 125,000 filed and unfiled claims, structured into three components:

1. 8.8–8.8–9.6 billion for existing lawsuits (with average payouts ranging from 5,000–5,000–250,000 per claimant depending on injury severity).

2. $1.25 billion for a "class settlement" covering future claims (later rejected by a federal judge in 2021 over concerns about claimant rights).

3. $400 million to resolve claims from agricultural workers exposed to Roundup.

Critically, this settlement did not prevent new lawsuits, as Bayer refused to admit liability or remove Roundup from the market.

IV. Can You Still File a Roundup Lawsuit in 2024?

Yes, new claims are still being filed, but eligibility depends on several factors:

• Diagnosis of Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma (NHL) or other qualifying cancers (e.g., leukemia, multiple myeloma).

• Proof of Roundup exposure (e.g., occupational use in farming, landscaping, or frequent home application).

• Statute of limitations compliance (varies by state, typically 1–3 years from diagnosis).

Bayer continues to fight cases individually, with some recent verdicts still favoring plaintiffs ($1.25 million awarded in November 2023). However, the company has won several recent trials, signaling a more aggressive defense strategy.

V. The Rejected "Future Claims" Settlement & Its Implications

U.S. District Judge Vincent Chhabria rejected Bayer's proposed $1.25 billion "future claims" settlement in May 2021, ruling that it:

• Unfairly restricted future claimants' rights by imposing a 4-year claims window.

• Lacked adequate scientific oversight in determining compensation tiers.

• Failed to provide sufficient notice to potential victims unaware of their exposure risks.

This rejection means that future claimants retain full litigation rights rather than being forced into a settlement class.

VI. Current Legal Pathways for Roundup Claims

As of 2024, claimants have three primary options:

1. Individual Lawsuit – Best for severe NHL cases with strong medical documentation.

2. Multidistrict Litigation (MDL 2741) – For cases consolidated in federal court (though no global settlement remains).

3. State Court Filings – Some plaintiffs opt for state courts with favorable jury pools (e.g., California, Missouri).

Bayer has won 10 of the last 15 trials, suggesting claimants need stronger evidence than in earlier cases.

VII. Key Evidence Needed to Support a Claim

Successful claims typically require:

• Medical records confirming NHL diagnosis (biopsy reports, oncology treatment history).

• Exposure documentation (employment records, purchase receipts, witness testimony).

• Expert testimony (oncologists, epidemiologists linking glyphosate to cancer).

The Monsanto Papers—internal documents showing alleged efforts to manipulate science—remain critical in proving corporate misconduct.

VIII. Statute of Limitations: Critical Deadlines by State

Each state imposes different filing windows:

• California (2 years from diagnosis)

• Texas (2 years)

• Florida (4 years)

• New York (3 years)

Missed deadlines typically bar claims permanently, though some courts allow tolling for late-discovered injuries.

IX. Bayer's Legal Strategy Moving Forward

Bayer's current approach involves:

• Appealing large verdicts (e.g., the $2.25 billion Pennsylvania verdict in January 2024).

• Pushing for federal preemption (arguing EPA approval shields them from liability).

• Settling select cases quietly to avoid setting precedent.

The Supreme Court has so far declined to hear Bayer's preemption arguments, leaving the door open for more lawsuits.

X. Projected Future of Roundup Litigation

• More cases will go to trial, but average payouts may decrease as Bayer fights harder.

• New scientific studies could shift legal outcomes (e.g., if EPA reclassifies glyphosate).

• A new class settlement may emerge, but only with court-approved protections for future claimants.

Conclusion: Should You Pursue a Claim?

If you were diagnosed with NHL after prolonged Roundup exposure, you may still have a viable claim—but time is limited. Given Bayer's mixed trial record, claimants must act quickly, gather robust evidence, and consult specialized mass tort attorneys to assess their best legal path. While no global settlement exists, individual recoveries remain possible, particularly in jurisdictions with plaintiff-friendly juries.