Monsanto has won the first glyphosate case to be heard following the US Supreme Court’s landmark decision in June, CHEManager Internationalreported.
In the first trial involving the glyphosate-based weedkiller Roundup since the Durnell case, a Missouri court ruled unanimously in favour of the company in the case of Theresa Aretino et al v Monsanto Company,the 30 October report said.
Following the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Durnell case, which had ruled out claims based on alleged insufficient warning labels (“failure to warn”), the three plaintiffs pursued three causes of action: alleged fundamental defects in the product (“design defect”), intentional deception (“fraud”) and negligence.
According to Monsanto’s parent company, German chemical giant
According to Monsanto’s parent company, German chemical giant Bayer, the Missouri court’s ruling showed that, following the US Supreme Court’s landmark decision, the plaintiffs were unable to present evidence supporting alternative causes of action.
“We welcome the jury’s decision. It confirms that, in the Roundup litigation, there is no evidence to support the claims of alleged design defects, fraud or negligence,” said Bill Dodero, who heads Bayer’s legal department in the USA and the litigation division.
“This verdict should send a strong signal to plaintiffs who still intend to go to court even after the Supreme Court’s ruling. There are significant hurdles to doing so, both in terms of the grounds for the claims and the evidence presented in court.”
Bayer has faced a series of lawsuits linked
Bayer has faced a series of lawsuits linked to its Roundup weedkiller brand, which came with its US$63bn acquisition of Monsanto in 2018.
In June 2026, the US Supreme Court ruled in the Durnell case that federal law (the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, FIFRA) precluded claims based on state law if the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had clearly confirmed a product’s safety.
The central basis for the claims in the Roundup litigation was the alleged lack of warning labels.
As that basis for the claim had now
As that basis for the claim had now been eliminated, the plaintiffs in the Aretino case had relied on claims alleging fundamental product defects (“design defect”) and negligence (“negligence”), the report said.
“The overwhelming weight of scientific evidence and the consensus of regulatory bodies and their scientific assessments worldwide support the safety of glyphosate-based herbicides when used as directed,” Bayer said.
For example, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had repeatedly said glyphosate was not likely to be carcinogenic and had approved Roundup labels that contained no cancer warnings, the company added.
Bayer said it remained committed to the safety of glyphosate-based herbicides and would continue to vigorously defend these products in the remaining legal disputes.
