The Supreme Court, in a 7-2 decision, has limited the ability of individuals to sue companies over alleged health risks associated with products like Roundup, asserting that federal labeling regulations take precedence over state-court claims. The ruling impacts thousands of lawsuits nationwide that have sought billions of dollars from businesses.
At issue was a claim by a Missouri man who alleged that the weedkiller Roundup caused his cancer. His legal team sought $1.25 million, arguing the product's label should have warned about potential cancer risks. However, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has consistently found no evidence that glyphosate, the herbicide's main ingredient, causes cancer and therefore has not required such a warning. The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) establishes a uniform national labeling system to prevent a patchwork of state-specific requirements.
The Supreme Court's decision effectively prevents state courts from establishing their own warning standards when federal regulators have already made a determination. This ruling is expected to significantly curb litigation against Bayer, which acquired Roundup's manufacturer, Monsanto, in 2019, as well as similar claims against other companies.
Judgments in previous Roundup cases have amounted to billions of dollars. Legal experts suggest that the Supreme Court's intervention was necessary to address a proliferation of lawsuits based on theories that claim various substances are carcinogenic, often citing paid experts to support plaintiffs' claims. This decision is seen as a significant development for companies facing such litigation and a setback for plaintiffs' attorneys involved in these cases.