Roundup Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma Lawsuit 2026: MDL Status, Eligibility, and Bayer's Settlement Waves

The narrative around Roundup litigation often collapses into one of two oversimplified takes: “Monsanto already settled everything” or “you can’t file anymore.” Neither is accurate. Bayer — which acquired Monsanto in 2018 — announced an approximately $10.9 billion settlement framework in 2020 targeting a large subset of pending claims, but Roundup MDL 2741 before Judge Vince Chhabria in the Northern District of California remains an active federal proceeding. The case has generated three plaintiff-verdict bellwether trials, a Ninth Circuit ruling affirming liability in Hardeman v. Monsanto, and a continuing legal battle over how to handle future NHL diagnoses. If you or a family member has been diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma and used Roundup, the question is not whether the litigation exists — it’s whether your specific situation meets the eligibility criteria and what the current filing window looks like.

This guide addresses those questions directly. It is not legal advice; consult a licensed attorney about your individual circumstances.

The Science at the Center: IARC 2A, Glyphosate, and the EPA Disagreement

The central scientific dispute in Roundup litigation traces to a 2015 decision by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), the WHO cancer research arm. IARC classified glyphosate — the active herbicide ingredient in Roundup — as Group 2A: “probably carcinogenic to humans.” The classification was based on sufficient evidence in animals and limited evidence in humans, with non-Hodgkin lymphoma specifically cited as a relevant endpoint.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has taken a different position through its registration review process, concluding that glyphosate is “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans” at relevant exposure levels. The methodological divergence — IARC evaluates hazard identification while EPA conducts risk assessment at specific exposure thresholds — explains the conflicting conclusions.

Plaintiffs in Roundup litigation use IARC’s 2A classification and epidemiological studies (particularly agricultural health cohort studies and meta-analyses) to support causation arguments. Bayer/Monsanto has used the EPA’s position and challenged plaintiff expert witnesses under the Daubert standard. The bellwether results and subsequent appellate review have established that these causation arguments can survive legal scrutiny at trial.

Hardeman v. Monsanto and the Ninth Circuit: Why It Matters

Three Roundup cases went to bellwether jury trials before the MDL court:

• Dewayne Johnson v. Monsanto (2018, state court, San Francisco Superior) — $289 million initial verdict (later reduced on appeal), the first Roundup trial verdict
• Edwin Hardeman v. Monsanto (2019, MDL 2741, Judge Chhabria) — jury verdict for plaintiff, affirmed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in 2021
• Pilliod v. Monsanto (2019, state court, Alameda County) — verdict for plaintiffs

The Ninth Circuit’s affirmance in Hardeman v. Monsanto was legally significant because it rejected Monsanto’s argument that federal pesticide law (FIFRA) preempts state failure-to-warn claims. The court held that plaintiffs can proceed with claims that Roundup’s labeling was inadequate — even though the EPA had not required a cancer warning on the label. This ruling preserved the primary legal theory for thousands of pending claims.

MDL 2741 Structure: Bellwether → Settlement → Remaining Cases

Phase	Key Events	Status (2026)
MDL Formation	Centralized in N.D. Cal., Judge Chhabria	Ongoing
Bellwether Trials	Johnson, Hardeman, Pilliod — all plaintiff verdicts	Complete
9th Circuit (Hardeman)	Affirmed plaintiff verdict; FIFRA preemption rejected	2021 decision stands
Bayer Settlement Wave 1	~$10.9B framework announced June 2020	Substantially resolved covered claims
Ongoing MDL Docket	Cases outside settlement, new filings	Active
Future Claims Program	Proposed program for post-diagnosis NHL filers	Subject to court approval

Cases outside the 2020 settlement framework have continued through the MDL process. Bayer has also been negotiating with the MDL court over a “future claims” resolution mechanism to address plaintiffs who develop NHL after the initial settlement period. As of this writing, consult the official MDL court docket and Bayer’s published settlement information for current program details.

Talcum Powder Ovarian Cancer Lawsuit — Another Mass Tort, Similar Structure →

Eligibility Criteria: The Two Non-Negotiables

To have a viable Roundup NHL claim, two core elements must be present:

1. Documented Roundup Exposure

You must be able to show you used or were exposed to Roundup (or a glyphosate-based herbicide) in a way that could have contributed to your cancer. Stronger claims involve:

• Regular, direct application (mixing, spraying) over months or years
• Agricultural, landscaping, or groundskeeping work with occupational exposure records
• Lack of protective equipment during application
• Purchase receipts, employer pesticide application logs, coworker testimony

The epidemiological studies supporting the NHL-Roundup link generally found elevated risks with substantial cumulative exposure — not incidental or minimal contact.

2. Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma Diagnosis

Your pathology report should confirm an NHL diagnosis. Subtypes that have been the basis for claims include:

• Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL)
• Follicular lymphoma
• Mantle cell lymphoma
• Marginal zone lymphoma
• Chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma (CLL/SLL) has appeared in some claims

Statute of Limitations: State law governs the filing deadline, and it typically runs from diagnosis or from when you reasonably connected your NHL to Roundup exposure. This varies by state and is a critical factor an attorney must evaluate for your specific situation.

What Goes into a Plaintiff Fact Sheet (PFS)

MDL 2741 requires every plaintiff to submit a Plaintiff Fact Sheet — the foundational individual-case document within the MDL. The PFS covers:

• Personal and contact information
• NHL diagnosis: type, date confirmed, treating oncologist
• Roundup exposure: product names, years of use, how often, application method, protective equipment
• Other herbicide use (to distinguish exposure sources)
• Current medical status and treatment history
• Prior employment history related to herbicide exposure

Accuracy matters enormously. Incomplete or inconsistent PFS information is a common basis for defense challenges. Your attorney will guide you through the PFS, but you are the source of the exposure history — start documenting your memory of when, where, and how often you used Roundup now, before details fade.

Hernia Mesh Lawsuit — Parallel MDL Mass Tort Structure →

Bayer’s Settlement Program: What “Participation” Means

The ~$10.9 billion Bayer settlement framework covered claims by plaintiffs with diagnosed NHL who were represented by counsel and agreed to participate. Settlement participation involves:

1. Agreeing to a payment amount determined by a settlement allocation process (factoring in NHL severity, duration of exposure, age, other medical factors)
2. Signing a release that typically waives future claims related to the same alleged injury
3. Dismissal of your individual case from the MDL docket

The settlement amount for individual claimants under allocation programs is not publicly disclosed per case. Statements about “average settlements” circulating in advertising are not sourced from official MDL documents and should not be relied upon to estimate your own potential recovery.

Opt-out considerations: Some claimants chose not to participate in settlement programs and have continued pursuing individual litigation. That path offers the possibility of a larger jury verdict — as the bellwether trials demonstrated — but also involves years of additional litigation and the risk of a defense verdict.

Mass Tort Settlement Payout Timeline — How Long Before You Get Paid →

Tax Treatment of Your Settlement

Roundup settlement payments, to the extent they compensate for physical injury and illness (NHL and its treatment), are generally excludable from gross income under IRC § 104(a)(2). Amounts allocable to punitive damages or non-physical harm may be taxable. Consult a tax professional before receiving a settlement payment, particularly if you also receive Social Security disability, Medicaid, or VA benefits that could be affected. For more on how settlement tax rules work, see our coverage of IRS § 104 and lawsuit settlement taxation.

Causation Evidence: What Your Expert Must Establish

Roundup cases have survived Daubert challenges at trial, meaning plaintiff expert testimony on causation has been deemed scientifically reliable enough to be heard by juries. But that doesn’t mean causation is automatic. Your case will need an expert who can address:

General causation: Is glyphosate capable of causing non-Hodgkin lymphoma in humans? The IARC 2A classification, Agricultural Health Study data, and meta-analyses published in peer-reviewed journals provide the scientific foundation. Expert witnesses in MDL 2741 have testified to general causation based on this literature.

Specific causation: Did this plaintiff’s glyphosate exposure actually cause their NHL? This requires evidence about the amount and duration of exposure (the dose-response relationship), the specific NHL subtype, and ruling out alternative causes (prior chemotherapy, family history of NHL, other chemical exposures, immunosuppression).

Bayer’s defense has consistently focused on challenging specific causation — arguing that even if glyphosate could theoretically cause NHL, the plaintiff’s particular cancer was caused by something else. This is why thorough exposure documentation is so critical to individual case strength.

What epidemiological data is available: Several studies have examined glyphosate and NHL specifically:

• The Agricultural Health Study (AHS) — a large cohort of pesticide applicators — has produced findings that have been the subject of ongoing scientific analysis and debate
• Multiple meta-analyses of agricultural pesticide studies have included glyphosate-NHL associations
• The IARC Working Group reviewed this literature in 2015 before issuing the 2A classification

This scientific foundation does not guarantee a verdict, but it has been sufficient to support plaintiff verdicts in three bellwether trials.

How Roundup MDL Differs from a Class Action: Individual Case Management

If you are comparing the Roundup MDL to large consumer class action settlements where everyone gets the same small check, understand the structural difference:

In MDL 2741, every plaintiff maintains a separate individual case. The MDL consolidates pretrial proceedings — fact discovery, expert discovery, motions about admissibility of expert testimony — so that common questions are resolved once rather than 10,000 times. But each plaintiff’s damages, exposure history, and specific NHL diagnosis remain individual to their case.

This means:

• Your compensation depends on your individual facts: exposure duration, NHL severity and treatment, age, economic losses
• Your case is not automatically resolved when Bayer announces a settlement — you or your attorney must decide whether to participate
• The strength of your individual PFS and medical documentation directly affects your case value

This is why attorney selection matters: an attorney with hundreds of Roundup cases in MDL 2741 understands the current settlement matrix, the court’s case management orders, and the PFS requirements in ways that a generalist personal injury attorney may not.

Next Steps: A Practical Action Plan

If you have a Roundup NHL claim to investigate, here is the sequence that matters:

Secure your medical records now. Request pathology reports, oncology treatment records, and diagnosis confirmation letters from your treating providers. Hospital record departments take weeks; don’t wait.

Document your exposure history. Write down the years you used Roundup, how often, where, what protective equipment you used (or didn’t), and whether you purchased it for personal use or used it through an employer.

Consult a mass tort attorney with Roundup MDL experience. Initial consultations are typically free. Look for attorneys who can describe their current caseload in MDL 2741 specifically — not just “toxic tort” generally.

Verify your statute of limitations. Your attorney will confirm the deadline, but don’t delay the consultation assuming you have unlimited time.

Check official MDL resources directly:

• Northern District of California court docket: cand.uscourts.gov (search MDL 2741)
• Bayer’s official Roundup settlement information: bayer.com (search “glyphosate litigation”)

The Roundup litigation is one of the largest mass tort proceedings in U.S. history. Three bellwether trials produced plaintiff verdicts. The Ninth Circuit affirmed liability. Bayer paid billions in settlement. None of that means every claim succeeds — but it does mean that if you have a documented NHL diagnosis and credible Roundup exposure history, your claim deserves a professional evaluation.

One additional consideration: if you are currently receiving Social Security disability benefits or have applied for VA disability related to your NHL, those benefits and a Roundup civil lawsuit proceed through entirely separate systems. There is no automatic disqualification, but offsets and coordination-of-benefits questions may arise when a settlement is reached. This is an area where your attorney should advise you proactively before any settlement agreement is signed.

Camp Lejeune Toxic Exposure Lawsuit — Parallel Mass Tort Framework →