Skip to main content
Complete Olympic Games coverage at your fingertips
Your inside track on the Olympic Games
Enjoy unlimited digital access
$1.99
per week for 24 weeks
Complete Olympic Games coverage at your fingertips
Your inside track onthe Olympics Games
$1.99
per week
for 24 weeks
// //

A federal appeals court on Friday upheld a $25 million judgment and trial verdict finding Bayer’s Roundup caused a California resident’s non-Hodgkin lymphoma, dealing a blow to the chemical company’s hopes of limiting its legal risk over the weed-killer.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco rejected Bayer’s argument that lawsuits like Edwin Hardeman’s never should go to trial because federal pesticide laws barred allegations that the company failed to warn of Roundup’s cancer risks.

“It’s a slam dunk for plaintiffs,” said Leslie Brueckner, an attorney with Public Justice who helped with Hardeman’s appeal. “This proves these claims are viable in the tort system.”

Story continues below advertisement

Bayer did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

A jury in 2019 awarded Hardeman $5 million in compensatory damages and $75 million in punitive damages in the first federal case to have gone to trial. The punitive award was later cut to $20 million and the appeals court also upheld the reduction.

Friday’s ruling was the first by a federal appeals court in a case linking Roundup and cancer and Bayer had said the case had the potential to “shape how every subsequent Roundup case is litigated.”

Bayer has said that decades of studies have shown Roundup and other glyphosate-based herbicides that dominate the market are safe for human use.

The company has argued that glyphosate was approved by the Environmental Protection Agency as safe for humans and that regulators prevented it from adding a warning to the product’s label.

But the company has spent years trying to contain the litigation.

Bayer has committed $9.6 billion to settle 125,000 claims over Roundup. On Wednesday it will seek preliminary approval for a $2 billion proposed deal to resolve future claims by the millions of consumers and farmworkers who have been exposed to Roundup but have not gotten sick.

Story continues below advertisement

“The timing couldn’t be more perfect,” said Brueckner, referring to Wednesday’s hearing. “I doubt it was accidental.”

Proponents of the agreement to create a framework for resolving future cases had argued that consumers would benefit from the deal because they might lose the right to sue Bayer if a federal appeals court sided with company.

“This decision wipes that argument off the table,” said Brueckner.

Consumer advocates and personal injury attorneys have objected to the $2 billion agreement on future cases because they argue it wrongly limits rights to sue.

The agreement proposed giving those exposed to Roundup free medical exams and, if they develop non-Hodgkin lymphoma, compensation worth up to $200,000 as well as free legal advice.

The agreement would pause all litigation for four years and prevent consumers from seeking punitive damages. But anyone rejecting the compensation would still retain the right to sue for compensation once the litigation pause expired.

Story continues below advertisement

Be smart with your money. Get the latest investing insights delivered right to your inbox three times a week, with the Globe Investor newsletter. Sign up today.

Your Globe

Build your personal news feed

  1. Follow topics and authors relevant to your reading interests.
  2. Check your Following feed daily, and never miss an article. Access your Following feed from your account menu at the top right corner of every page.

Follow topics related to this article:

View more suggestions in Following Read more about following topics and authors
Report an error
Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

If you do not see your comment posted immediately, it is being reviewed by the moderation team and may appear shortly, generally within an hour.

We aim to have all comments reviewed in a timely manner.

Comments that violate our community guidelines will not be posted.

UPDATED: Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

To view this site properly, enable cookies in your browser. Read our privacy policy to learn more.
How to enable cookies