Bayer settles Broward weedkiller case as legal battles loom in other states, Supreme Court
By Rick Mayer
April 3, 2026 at 7:55 AM EDT
The Florida resolution comes as Bayer seeks approval of a $7.25 billion class settlement in Missouri and weeks before the U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to hear a case that could determine whether the company can be shielded from failure-to-warn lawsuits.
A court in Broward County has approved a settlement in what was expected to be Florida’s first trial over allegations long-term exposure to the weedkiller Roundup causes cancer.
The resolution comes as Bayer seeks approval of a $7.25 billion nationwide class settlement in Missouri and weeks before the U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to hear a case that could determine whether the company can be shielded from failure-to-warn lawsuits.
The Florida case involved landscaper Alexander Palacios, who used the herbicide and was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma at age 34. Palacios sued Monsanto, now a Bayer subsidiary, in 2024, and a trial was set for March 9 in Broward Circuit Court in Fort Lauderdale.
According to court documents, the parties settled on March 27. No terms of the settlement were released, and it was unknown if it was connected to a class action.
Broward Circuit Judge Carol-Lisa Phillips also approved a separate settlement for Palacios’ 4-year-old son, Noah, who was a co-plaintiff in the case. Because a minor was involved, the court appointed a guardian to review the settlement and then approved it as in the child's "best interest." The son's share was ordered to be placed in a trust, subject to court oversight.
In December, Palacios' attorney, Daniel Di Matteo, told WUSF his client had no known risk factors other than years of Roundup exposure as a landscaper. He said Palacios' cancer went away for a short period, but returned, and he was undergoing his second course of immunotherapy.
“Best case scenario: he's looking at a lifetime of constant medical monitoring and observation and living under the cloud that at any given point in time his cancer can come back,” Di Matteo said. “And the worst-case scenario is — it pains me to say this — early death.”
Bayer disputes the cancer-causing assertions. But the company has said the legal costs are threatening its ability to continue selling glyphosate-based products in U.S. agricultural markets. It's already removed glyphosate from its new versions of Roundup for residential markets.
Monsanto introduced Roundup in 1974 with glyphosate as its active ingredient, and it became one of the most widely used herbicides in agriculture. Bayer acquired Monsanto in 2018, inheriting a growing wave of lawsuits alleging the product causes non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.
The product became one of the most widely used herbicides in agriculture. Roundup is designed to be used with genetically modified seeds that can resist the weedkiller’s deadly effect, thus allowing farmers to produce more while conserving the soil by tilling it less.
The Florida settlement comes down against the broader national fight, as courts and state legislatures weigh whether Bayer can be held liable for failing to warn about cancer risks.
State legislation aims to block failure-to-warn lawsuits
At the legislative level, Kentucky's Republican-led General Assembly brushed aside the objections of Democratic Gov. Andy Beshear to enact a new law that could protect Bayer from state lawsuits alleging failure to warn. Bayer acquired Monsanto in 2018.
The veto override on Wednesday by Kentucky's Republican-led General Assembly comes just weeks before the U.S. Supreme Court is to hear arguments in a case that could erect a nationwide shield against such liability lawsuits.
The multipronged action in state capitols and courtrooms highlights what's become a pressing financial issue for the Germany-based company. It also hits on an issue that has revealed split viewpoints among President Donald Trump's supporters and the Make America Healthy Again movement.
Beshear, a former state attorney general, noted that many other items already contain warning labels, including cosmetics, personal hygiene products and household cleaners.
But the Kentucky measure “would allow dangerous pesticides to be sold without having labels warning of the risks of using them. It flies in the face of making America healthy,” Beshear said in his veto message.
Bayer has joined with a coalition of agricultural organizations called Modern Ag Alliance to try to block similar claims. They have backed bills in multiple states declaring that a federally approved label on pesticides is sufficient to satisfy any duty under state law to warn customers.
North Dakota and Georgia became the first states to enact the legal shield last year. Kentucky became the third when lawmakers voted to override Beshear's veto.
“Farmers need clear, consistent rules to plan for the future and keep their operations profitable,” Elizabeth Burns-Thompson, executive director of Modern Ag Alliance, said while praising the Kentucky law.
The Florida Legislature failed to pass similar shield laws in 2024 and 2025. Last year's version, which never made it to a chamber floor, protected distributors, dealers and applicators from liability lawsuits. It would also have protected manufacturers from a "failure to warn" for any federally registered product.
Supreme Court case draws high interest
The Supreme Court is to hear arguments on April 27 on a Missouri case in which a jury awarded $1.25 million to a man who developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma after spraying Roundup on a community garden in St. Louis. Jurors held Monsanto liable for failing to warn of the risk.
Bayer contends federal pesticide laws preempt failure-to-warn claims under state laws because states cannot require additional labeling.
Trump's administration has sided with Bayer, reversing the position of former President Joe Biden administration and putting it at odds with some supporters of the Make America Healthy Again agenda who oppose giving companies legal immunity from such claims.
The case has drawn a lot of attention. Agricultural groups, business associations, health care organizations, plaintiffs' attorneys and state elected officials have combined to file about 30 separate legal briefs urging the high court to rule either for or against Bayer's assertion of federal legal protection.
Among them is a group of former EPA officials who say the state lawsuits should be allowed. Roundup's maker never proposed that EPA include a cancer warning on its labels, so the lack of such labeling “cannot be understood as an implicit rejection of such a warning” and should not preempt failure-to-warn lawsuits, their court filing says.
A proposed settlement could resolve thousands of cases
A St. Louis Circuit Court judge gave preliminary approval last month to a proposed settlement intended to resolve most of the pending and future failure-to-warn claims involving Roundup. That triggered the start of a notification period in which people can choose to opt out of the settlement by June 4.
The proposed deal calls for Bayer to make annual payments into a special fund for up to 21 years, totaling as much as $7.25 billion. The amount of money paid to individuals would vary depending on how they used Roundup, how old they were when diagnosed and the severity of their non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
An agricultural, industrial or turf worker exposed at length to Roundup would receive an average of $165,000 if diagnosed with an aggressive form of the illness while younger than age 60, according to the proposed settlement. People diagnosed at age 78 or older would get an average of $10,000.
The settlement would eliminate some of the risk from an eventual Supreme Court ruling. Patients would be assured of receiving settlement money even if the Supreme Court rules in Bayer’s favor. And Bayer would be protected from potentially larger costs if the high court rules against it.
Information from the Associated Press was used in this report.
The resolution comes as Bayer seeks approval of a $7.25 billion nationwide class settlement in Missouri and weeks before the U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to hear a case that could determine whether the company can be shielded from failure-to-warn lawsuits.
The Florida case involved landscaper Alexander Palacios, who used the herbicide and was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma at age 34. Palacios sued Monsanto, now a Bayer subsidiary, in 2024, and a trial was set for March 9 in Broward Circuit Court in Fort Lauderdale.
According to court documents, the parties settled on March 27. No terms of the settlement were released, and it was unknown if it was connected to a class action.
Broward Circuit Judge Carol-Lisa Phillips also approved a separate settlement for Palacios’ 4-year-old son, Noah, who was a co-plaintiff in the case. Because a minor was involved, the court appointed a guardian to review the settlement and then approved it as in the child's "best interest." The son's share was ordered to be placed in a trust, subject to court oversight.
In December, Palacios' attorney, Daniel Di Matteo, told WUSF his client had no known risk factors other than years of Roundup exposure as a landscaper. He said Palacios' cancer went away for a short period, but returned, and he was undergoing his second course of immunotherapy.
“Best case scenario: he's looking at a lifetime of constant medical monitoring and observation and living under the cloud that at any given point in time his cancer can come back,” Di Matteo said. “And the worst-case scenario is — it pains me to say this — early death.”
Bayer disputes the cancer-causing assertions. But the company has said the legal costs are threatening its ability to continue selling glyphosate-based products in U.S. agricultural markets. It's already removed glyphosate from its new versions of Roundup for residential markets.
Monsanto introduced Roundup in 1974 with glyphosate as its active ingredient, and it became one of the most widely used herbicides in agriculture. Bayer acquired Monsanto in 2018, inheriting a growing wave of lawsuits alleging the product causes non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.
The product became one of the most widely used herbicides in agriculture. Roundup is designed to be used with genetically modified seeds that can resist the weedkiller’s deadly effect, thus allowing farmers to produce more while conserving the soil by tilling it less.
The Florida settlement comes down against the broader national fight, as courts and state legislatures weigh whether Bayer can be held liable for failing to warn about cancer risks.
State legislation aims to block failure-to-warn lawsuits
At the legislative level, Kentucky's Republican-led General Assembly brushed aside the objections of Democratic Gov. Andy Beshear to enact a new law that could protect Bayer from state lawsuits alleging failure to warn. Bayer acquired Monsanto in 2018.
The veto override on Wednesday by Kentucky's Republican-led General Assembly comes just weeks before the U.S. Supreme Court is to hear arguments in a case that could erect a nationwide shield against such liability lawsuits.
The multipronged action in state capitols and courtrooms highlights what's become a pressing financial issue for the Germany-based company. It also hits on an issue that has revealed split viewpoints among President Donald Trump's supporters and the Make America Healthy Again movement.
Beshear, a former state attorney general, noted that many other items already contain warning labels, including cosmetics, personal hygiene products and household cleaners.
But the Kentucky measure “would allow dangerous pesticides to be sold without having labels warning of the risks of using them. It flies in the face of making America healthy,” Beshear said in his veto message.
Bayer has joined with a coalition of agricultural organizations called Modern Ag Alliance to try to block similar claims. They have backed bills in multiple states declaring that a federally approved label on pesticides is sufficient to satisfy any duty under state law to warn customers.
North Dakota and Georgia became the first states to enact the legal shield last year. Kentucky became the third when lawmakers voted to override Beshear's veto.
“Farmers need clear, consistent rules to plan for the future and keep their operations profitable,” Elizabeth Burns-Thompson, executive director of Modern Ag Alliance, said while praising the Kentucky law.
The Florida Legislature failed to pass similar shield laws in 2024 and 2025. Last year's version, which never made it to a chamber floor, protected distributors, dealers and applicators from liability lawsuits. It would also have protected manufacturers from a "failure to warn" for any federally registered product.
Supreme Court case draws high interest
The Supreme Court is to hear arguments on April 27 on a Missouri case in which a jury awarded $1.25 million to a man who developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma after spraying Roundup on a community garden in St. Louis. Jurors held Monsanto liable for failing to warn of the risk.
Bayer contends federal pesticide laws preempt failure-to-warn claims under state laws because states cannot require additional labeling.
Trump's administration has sided with Bayer, reversing the position of former President Joe Biden administration and putting it at odds with some supporters of the Make America Healthy Again agenda who oppose giving companies legal immunity from such claims.
The case has drawn a lot of attention. Agricultural groups, business associations, health care organizations, plaintiffs' attorneys and state elected officials have combined to file about 30 separate legal briefs urging the high court to rule either for or against Bayer's assertion of federal legal protection.
Among them is a group of former EPA officials who say the state lawsuits should be allowed. Roundup's maker never proposed that EPA include a cancer warning on its labels, so the lack of such labeling “cannot be understood as an implicit rejection of such a warning” and should not preempt failure-to-warn lawsuits, their court filing says.
A proposed settlement could resolve thousands of cases
A St. Louis Circuit Court judge gave preliminary approval last month to a proposed settlement intended to resolve most of the pending and future failure-to-warn claims involving Roundup. That triggered the start of a notification period in which people can choose to opt out of the settlement by June 4.
The proposed deal calls for Bayer to make annual payments into a special fund for up to 21 years, totaling as much as $7.25 billion. The amount of money paid to individuals would vary depending on how they used Roundup, how old they were when diagnosed and the severity of their non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
An agricultural, industrial or turf worker exposed at length to Roundup would receive an average of $165,000 if diagnosed with an aggressive form of the illness while younger than age 60, according to the proposed settlement. People diagnosed at age 78 or older would get an average of $10,000.
The settlement would eliminate some of the risk from an eventual Supreme Court ruling. Patients would be assured of receiving settlement money even if the Supreme Court rules in Bayer’s favor. And Bayer would be protected from potentially larger costs if the high court rules against it.
Information from the Associated Press was used in this report.