ST. LOUIS, MO – September 14, 2026 (STL.News) A St. Louis judge is considering whether to approve a proposed $7.25 billion nationwide settlement involving Monsanto’s Roundup weedkiller, a potentially pivotal development in years of litigation involving tens of thousands of people who allege exposure to the product caused cancer.
Circuit Judge Timothy J. Boyer is scheduled Monday to conduct a final fairness hearing in King v. Monsanto Co., Case No. 2622-CC00325, in the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis.
The proposed settlement could resolve a large portion of approximately 65,000 Roundup claims still facing Monsanto and its German parent company, Bayer AG.
But the settlement is contested.
Some plaintiffs’ attorneys argue the proposed compensation is inadequate and object to a settlement structure that could affect people who have not yet developed cancer. Attorneys supporting the agreement argue it provides cancer patients with a more predictable route to compensation at a time when continued Roundup litigation has become substantially more uncertain.
Judge Boyer is not expected to issue an immediate decision Monday, according to Reuters.
The outcome could have consequences far beyond St. Louis.
Approval would represent one of Bayer’s most significant attempts yet to contain the massive legal liability it inherited when it acquired Monsanto in 2018.
Settlement Could Pay Up to $7.25 Billion
The proposed agreement was announced in February and received preliminary approval from Judge Boyer on March 4.
It is designed to address current and certain future claims involving people exposed to Roundup who developed, or subsequently develop, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, or NHL.
According to Reuters, compensation under the proposed agreement generally ranges from approximately $10,000 to $165,000, depending on circumstances including the claimant’s age, cancer severity, and whether Roundup exposure occurred occupationally or residentially.
The settlement does not simply divide $7.25 billion equally among plaintiffs.
Compensation would instead depend on individual circumstances.
That distinction is important because the enormous headline figure does not mean every claimant would receive a large six-figure payment.
People with significant documented occupational exposure could potentially qualify for larger awards, while other claimants could receive substantially less.
The proposed settlement also attempts to address one of the most difficult problems Bayer has faced throughout the Roundup litigation: future claims from people who were exposed to Roundup but have not yet developed cancer.
Bayer said when preliminary approval was granted that the settlement was designed to resolve both current and potential future claims alleging non-Hodgkin lymphoma injuries.
That feature is also one reason the settlement has attracted substantial opposition.
Opponents Challenge the Settlement
Dozens of people have objected to the agreement.
Opponents have argued that the proposed settlement may inadequately compensate cancer patients and questioned whether a Missouri state court should impose a nationwide settlement affecting people in other states and individuals who may develop cancer years from now.
Those concerns go beyond the dollar amounts.
The American Association for Justice and Public Justice submitted an amicus brief addressing several significant legal questions, including whether present and future claimants received constitutionally adequate notice, whether groups with potentially conflicting interests have adequate and independent representation, whether class members received a meaningful opportunity to opt out, and issues involving punitive damages and other states’ sovereign interests.
Those questions illustrate why Monday’s proceeding is a fairness hearing, rather than simply a procedural approval of an agreement already reached between Monsanto and participating attorneys.
Judge Boyer must determine whether the proposed class settlement satisfies applicable legal requirements.
Bayer Says Settlement Is Fair
Monsanto and Bayer strongly support the agreement.
Bayer has said plaintiffs’ attorneys representing tens of thousands of potential class members support the settlement and that the company believes the agreement is fair and warrants final approval.
Bayer also continues to reject allegations that Roundup causes cancer.
The company maintains that decades of scientific studies support the safety of glyphosate, Roundup’s principal active ingredient.
The scientific and regulatory history is more complicated than either side’s litigation position alone.
The World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer classified glyphosate in 2015 as “probably carcinogenic to humans.”
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has reached a different conclusion, determining that glyphosate is not likely to be carcinogenic to humans under expected exposure conditions. Reuters reports that the EPA is working on an updated human-health risk assessment expected later in 2026.
The conflicting assessments have been central to years of Roundup litigation.
Supreme Court Changed the Legal Landscape
A major development occurred while the St. Louis settlement was awaiting final consideration.
On June 25, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in Monsanto’s favor in a separate Missouri Roundup case involving plaintiff John Durnell.
Durnell had obtained a $1.25 million jury verdict after alleging years of Roundup exposure caused his non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
The Supreme Court concluded that federal pesticide law preempted the state-law failure-to-warn claim involved in his case.
That decision was extremely important for Bayer.
Failure-to-warn allegations had been a central component of many Roundup cases.
The ruling does not necessarily eliminate every possible Roundup claim. Plaintiffs may attempt to proceed under other legal theories, including defective-design allegations, depending on the circumstances and applicable law.
But the Supreme Court decision significantly strengthened Monsanto’s litigation position and increased uncertainty for plaintiffs who choose to pursue individual cases rather than settle.
The decision was significant enough that Bayer shares rose approximately 16% following the ruling.
That illustrates how closely investors have been watching the Roundup litigation.
Supreme Court Decision Delayed St. Louis Hearing
Monday’s hearing has already been postponed more than once.
Judge Boyer originally scheduled the final approval hearing for July.
A separate dispute arose after opponents tried to move the case from Missouri state court to federal court.
U.S. District Judge Henry E. Autrey ultimately sent the case back to state court in June.
Opponents continued challenging that decision, but the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed their challenge in August, leaving the settlement proceeding in St. Louis Circuit Court.
The fairness hearing was eventually scheduled for Aug. 19.
Then another development followed the Supreme Court’s Durnell decision.
On Aug. 6, Judge Boyer granted a joint request from Monsanto and class counsel and moved the final approval hearing to Sept. 14.
Monsanto said the additional time would allow the parties and settlement administrator to process requests from people seeking to revoke previous decisions to opt out following the Supreme Court ruling and to address challenges involving the validity of certain opt-outs.
In other words, the Supreme Court victory changed the calculation facing some Roundup plaintiffs.
Before the decision, an individual plaintiff might have believed pursuing an independent lawsuit offered a better opportunity than accepting settlement compensation.
After the Supreme Court weakened a major legal theory underlying Roundup litigation, participating in the settlement may have become more attractive.
Bayer Has Already Spent Billions on Roundup
The proposed $7.25 billion agreement represents only the latest chapter in an extraordinarily expensive legal battle.
Bayer acquired Monsanto in 2018.
The Roundup litigation subsequently became a significant financial and legal problem for the company.
In 2020, Bayer announced an approximately $10 billion settlement effort intended to resolve large numbers of existing Roundup claims.
That effort resolved many cases but failed to eliminate Bayer’s exposure to future litigation.
Approximately 65,000 claims remained pending in state and federal courts as Bayer pursued the current settlement, according to Reuters. More than 4,000 additional cases remain consolidated in federal multidistrict litigation in California, and the proposed St. Louis settlement does not resolve those federal cases.
The continuing litigation has weighed on Bayer financially and on investor perceptions of the company.
For Bayer CEO Bill Anderson, containing the Roundup liability has therefore become an important component of the company’s broader turnaround effort.
Why St. Louis Is at the Center of the Case
The settlement’s location is noteworthy.
Monsanto was headquartered in the St. Louis area before Bayer acquired the company.
Five individual plaintiffs filed the proposed nationwide class action on Feb. 17 in the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis against Monsanto.
Judge Boyer granted preliminary approval March 4 but expressly had not made a final determination that the settlement should be approved.
That determination is now before him.
Attorneys supporting the settlement include lawyers from Seeger Weiss; Williams Hart & Boundas; Waters Kraus Paul & Siegel; The Holland Law Firm; and Ketchmark & McCreight, according to court-related reporting.
Monsanto’s attorneys have included lawyers from Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz; Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher; and St. Louis-based Dowd Bennett.
Objecting plaintiffs have been represented by attorneys including Ashley Keller of Keller Postman and R. Prescott Sifton of Frazer.
The competing legal teams demonstrate the extraordinary stakes surrounding the agreement.
What Happens if the Judge Approves the Settlement?
Final approval would not necessarily mean immediate payments.
The settlement could still face appeals and additional procedural challenges.
Claims would then have to be processed according to the settlement’s eligibility and compensation procedures.
Approval also would not constitute a judicial determination that Roundup causes cancer.
Likewise, a settlement does not by itself represent an admission by Monsanto or Bayer that the allegations against the companies are true.
Bayer continues to deny that glyphosate causes cancer and continues to defend Roundup’s safety.
Conversely, approval would not erase the history of jury verdicts obtained by Roundup plaintiffs or the scientific dispute concerning glyphosate.
It would represent a judicial determination concerning the fairness and legality of this particular settlement structure.
What Happens if the Settlement Is Rejected?
Rejection could create considerably more uncertainty.
Thousands of individual cases could continue through state courts while federal litigation proceeds separately.
Plaintiffs and Monsanto could return to negotiations and attempt to construct another settlement.
Bayer would also continue facing the financial uncertainty that has surrounded Roundup litigation since its acquisition of Monsanto.
The Supreme Court’s Durnell decision would nevertheless remain an important advantage for Bayer because plaintiffs would face greater difficulty pursuing failure-to-warn theories preempted by federal law.
Other legal theories could remain available, however, meaning rejection of the settlement would not automatically end Roundup litigation.
A $7.25 Billion Decision With National Consequences
What happens in a St. Louis courtroom could therefore influence one of the largest mass-tort disputes in the United States.
Judge Boyer must weigh competing interests.
Thousands of people diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma want compensation.
Some plaintiffs and their attorneys believe the settlement offers the most reliable path toward receiving it.
Others contend the proposed payments are inadequate and that current or future cancer patients should retain greater ability to pursue Monsanto individually.
Bayer wants greater certainty after years of costly litigation.
And investors want to know whether the company can finally contain a liability that has followed it since its $63 billion acquisition of Monsanto in 2018.
The Supreme Court has already dramatically changed the legal landscape.
Now attention returns to St. Louis.
Judge Boyer’s eventual decision on the $7.25 billion Roundup settlement could determine whether Bayer has finally found a viable path toward resolving much of its remaining Roundup liability — or whether one of America’s longest-running corporate mass-tort battles will continue.
Is each life worth more than $10,000 to $165,000? One would hope so.
You can also view this news article at USPress.News
Read St. Louis Local News at STL.News
Editor’s Note: The proposed settlement remains subject to court approval. Monsanto and Bayer dispute allegations that Roundup caused individual plaintiffs’ cancers. Settlement approval would not constitute an admission of wrongdoing or a judicial finding that Roundup causes cancer. STL.News will update this report when the court issues its decision.
