Georgia Lawmakers Agree To Shield Bayer From Roundup Cancer Lawsuits

North Carolina is the only other state to have passed a similar law, shielding Bayer from liability for failing to warn about the link between Roundup and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.

Since Bayer and its Monsanto subsidiary have repeatedly been hit with massive verdicts in Roundup cancer lawsuits, the manufacturer of the widely used herbicide has turned to state legislatures as part of a continuing effort to secure protection from future claims over its failure to warn about the risk of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma from Roundup.

Last week, Georgia Governor Brian Kemp signed a new law into effect that will shield the makers of Roundup, and any other pesticide, from failure to warn lawsuits in the state, so long as the products followed federal labeling guidelines.

Over the past decade Bayer, and its Monsanto subsidiary, have faced more than 120,000 Roundup lawsuits, each alleging that the manufacturer failed to disclose that the active ingredient glyphosate may cause users to develop non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and other injuries.

While the company has paid more than $10 billion in Roundup settlements over the past few years, Bayer and Monsanto have repeatedly failed to defend the safety of their weed killer at trial and are expected to continue facing new claims for years, as former users develop non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.

Georgia is only the second state to sign a bill that grants Bayer immunity from Roundup lawsuits, after North Carolina passed a similar law earlier this year. The new laws broaden the scope of federal preemption laws as they pertain to pesticides.

Many critics of the measures point out that Bayer and Monsanto have asserted undue influence on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), leading the agency to support the safety of glyphosate, despite studies warning it is a likely cancer-causing agent that increases the risk of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.

The new Georgia law, which does not apply to cases already filed, suggests that as long as the EPA holds that stance, the state will shield Bayer from future Roundup litigation.

The legislation comes as juries across the country continue to find in favor of Roundup plaintiffs against the company. Just this past weekend, a Pennsylvania appeals court rejected an effort by Monsanto to overturn a 2024 jury verdict that awarded Ernest and Carmela Caranci more than $177 million (PDF).

Georgia is just one of 17 states that lobbyists for Bayer have convinced to pursue new laws which would ban citizens’ abilities to pursue product liability lawsuits. Of those, only Georgia and North Carolina have passed the legislation.

At least 10 states currently have similar bills under debate. Six other states have rejected the proposals.

Bayer Seeks Supreme Court Protection

In an effort to avoid having to get such laws approved state-by-state, last month Bayer filed a Writ of Certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that all Roundup failure to warn claims nationwide should be barred by federal preemption, since the herbicide was approved by federal regulators.

It is the company’s third attempt to get the U.S. Supreme Court to weigh in on the litigation, with the petition coming after the Missouri Supreme Court rejected a similar Roundup appeal in February, after a jury verdict awarded John Durnell $1.25 million in damages at trial in October 2023. 

The Supreme Court has already rejected Bayer’s Roundup appeals before, after the company petitioned the Court to review another Roundup trial defeat in May 2019, involving an $87 million verdict awarded to a California couple, Alva and Alberta Pilliod. However, the Supreme Court refused to review the case in June 2022. 

This followed a previous refusal to review another Roundup appeal in March 2019. The Court provided no comment about the reasons why the previous petitions were rejected, which is not uncommon.

At the time, Bayer indicated it disagreed with the ruling and that it would look for future opportunities to bring the litigation before the high court. The company now indicates that recent differences of opinion between the Ninth and Eleventh Circuit Courts has provided that opportunity. However, many legal observers believe this latest request for Supreme Court review is a final “hail Mary” attempt to end the litigation.