Reason | By David Bernstein
To say that these verdicts are not justified by the scientific evidence would be a massive understatement. Every regulatory body in the world that has studied Roundup has declared that it’s safe and that it’s unlikely that it’s a carcinogen.
Law.com | By Amanda Bronstad
Despite losing three verdicts in California over Roundup, including this week’s $2 billion jury award, Bayer AG isn’t backing down.
Washington Examiner | By Angela Logomasini
Jurors can be easily swayed by the emotionally charged testimony of plaintiffs suffering with cancer, even when it’s not likely related to the claims made in the case at hand.
Legal Newsline | By Daniel Fisher
On April 30, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency declared glyphosate, the active ingredient in the widely used weedkiller Roundup, to be safe. Less than two weeks later, a California jury ordered Bayer AG to pay $2 billion to a couple who blamed their non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma on Roundup.
Fox Business | By Stuart Varney
The trial lasted weeks, but the jury took less than two days to arrive at that $2 billion award. Questioned later, some jurors made it clear they were in a mood to punish the Roundup makers.
The Wall Street Journal | Editorial Board
A California jury awarded a stunning $2.055 billion Monday to a couple who claim that Bayer AG’s Roundup weed killer caused their cancer. But would the judgment have been different if the judge had allowed the jury to see contradictory evidence?
Law360 | By Dorothy Atkins
On Wednesday, Monsanto’s counsel said they plan to challenge all three verdicts, noting that there are “jurors of scientists” around the world, including at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, who have reviewed the risks of Roundup’s active ingredient, glyphosate, and concluded that it’s safe.
Agri-Pulse | By Steve Davies
Bayer says there are many issues on appeal that need to be decided. “None of our verdicts have been subject to appeal and there are several critical legal issues that must be assessed at the appellate level that cover causation, failure to warn, punitive damages and even whether cases based on state law claims are preempted by federal law,” Bayer spokesman Chris Loder said.
The Recorder | By Amanda Bronstad
In a motion filed Monday, Monsanto, now owned by Bayer, said it feared that plaintiffs attorney R. Brent Wisner, of Baum Hedlund Aristei & Goldman in Los Angeles, would repeat some of the controversial remarks he made during his closing argument in the first trial, which ended with a $289 million verdict.
Northern California Record | By Rich Peters
Expert Dr. Robert Phalen said in the Alameda Superior Court that glyphosate, the key chemical in Roundup, is not easily absorbed by the human body and argued that a high dosage rate is unlikely despite decades of the product’s use by the plaintiffs.
Bayer today provided an update on its five-point plan to address future Roundup™ litigation risk after its May 27th decision to withdraw from the national class process. The company is now in more control of important aspects of the risk mitigation process and has sketched out two basic scenarios going forward to provide a path to closure of this litigation. The first scenario is based on obtaining a favorable decision by the United States Supreme Court on a cross-cutting issue like federal preemption which would effectively and largely end the U.S. Roundup™ litigation. The second scenario assumes that the Supreme Court either declines to hear the Hardeman case or issues a ruling in favor of plaintiff – in that case the company would activate its own claims administration program.
Read about the five-point plan here.