Roundup™ Class Settlement Agreement: Questions and Answers

Our goal is to contain this litigation to the greatest degree and as quickly as possible so we can focus our full time and attention on our mission. The proposed class and the Supreme Court review in Durnell are independently necessary and mutually reinforcing steps to achieve this result. 

The expectation of Supreme Court review of the cross-cutting question in this litigation – whether state claims based on failure-to-warn theories are preempted by federal law – helped make this class settlement possible. And Supreme Court review is critically important to resolve substantial outstanding damage awards in pending appeals, cover opt outs from the class, and provide definitive guidance for agricultural companies and customers on the application of federal law that is needed for future innovation. However, some plaintiffs may attempt to continue litigation and that could delay closure.    

The proposed class settlement is designed to resolve both current and future claims alleging Non-Hodgkin lymphoma injuries due to Roundup™ exposure prior to the settlement date regardless of specific legal theory. Thus, it resolves claims that could remain subject to litigation after the Supreme Court’s decision. And once approved by the court, it would be led by a professional claims administrator.      

The company will continue to pursue other elements of its multi-pronged strategy as well, including supporting legislation at the state and federal level, regulatory actions and other measures that are intended to help achieve regulatory clarity and contain litigation risk. These are all critical to ensure farmers in the United States can continue to have access to safe, approved crop protection tools and can compete in the global marketplace. 

These actions are taking place solely to contain the litigation, and the settlement agreements do not contain any admission of liability or wrongdoing. Indeed, leading regulators worldwide, including the U.S. EPA, and EU regulatory bodies, continue to conclude based on an extensive body of science, that glyphosate-based herbicides – critical tools that farmers rely on to produce affordable food and feed the world – can be used safely and are not carcinogenic.       

The expectation of Supreme Court review helped make this settlement possible. While we remain confident of a favorable outcome, if we get an adverse or limited ruling, we don’t know whether a class settlement would be possible, and if it was, whether the price would be far higher and prohibitive for the company. We felt that we had the opportunity now to take decisive action with the class settlement in light of the Supreme Court case to pursue the strongest and fastest containment possible so we can put our full focus on our mission.   

The proposed class settlement differs markedly from the prior class settlement put forth by the company in 2020.   
The new proposed settlement is a long-term compensation program, with substantial funding up to 21 years, and is structured to address the needs of both present and future claimants through a common claims program.   
The prior proposed class settlement was a short-term program limited to four years with far less funding, and future litigation beyond four years was subject to determinations of an expert science panel.   

Supreme Court review is critically important to resolve substantial outstanding damage awards in pending appeals, cover opt outs from the class and provide definitive guidance for agricultural companies and customers on the application of federal law that is needed for future innovation.    
The class would resolve eligible current and potential future claims including those that may remain after a favorable Supreme Court outcome and was made possible by the Court’s decision to review the Durnell case.