Litigation Overview

On September 1, 2022, a defense verdict was issued in the Alesi trial in St. Louis County, Missouri. You can read Bayer's statement on the verdict here.

On June 17, 2022, a full defense verdict was issued in the Johnson trial in Medford, Oregon. You can read Bayer's statement on the verdict here.

On June 9, 2022, a full defense verdict was issued in the Shelton trial in Jackson County, Missouri. You can read Bayer's statement on the verdict here.

On December 9, 2021 the jury reached a verdict in favor of Monsanto in the Stephens trial in the Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino.

Read here for Bayer's statement.

On October 5, 2021 the jury reached a verdict in favor of Monsanto in the Clark trial in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles.

Read here for Bayer's statement.

Key Dates

• On March 19, 2019, a jury in Hardeman v. Monsanto, a bifurcated trial conducted before Judge Vince Chhabria in the federal multi-district litigation in the Northern District of California, found in favor of plaintiff Edwin Hardeman on the issue of causation after deliberating for more than four days. On March 27, 2019, the jury found Monsanto liable for Mr. Hardeman’s non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL) and awarded him a total of $80 million. Judge Chhabria later reduced the punitive damages to $20 million, thus cutting the overall verdict from $80.267 million to $25.267 million; read Bayer's statement here.
• On August 15, 2019, Monsanto filed a Notice of Appeal in the Hardeman glyphosate case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and on December 13, 2019 filed its opening appeal brief. The company argued that the verdict in Hardeman v. Monsanto should be reversed because the failure-to-warn claims at the center of the case are preempted by federal law and the trial court committed a host of reversible evidentiary and instructional errors relating to causation. Read the opening appeal brief here, and Bayer’s press release here.  
• On December 13, 2019, Monsanto filed its opening appeal brief in the Hardeman glyphosate case in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, urging the Court to reverse the verdict in the case.
• On December 19 and 20, 2019, amicus briefs were filed in the Hardeman glyphosate case in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Read the briefs here. 
• On June 1, 2020, Monsanto filed its final brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Oral arguments took place on October 23, 2020.
• On May 14, 2021, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the judgment in Hardeman. On August 16, 2021, Bayer – through its subsidiary Monsanto – filed its Petition for a Writ of Certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court asking them to review the case.
• On December 13, 2021, the Supreme Court called for the Views of the Solicitor General as they review the Company's petition. Read Bayer's statement here. 
• On May 10, 2022, the Solicitor General filed an amicus brief in the appeal. On May 23, 2022 the Company filed its final brief regarding its Petition for a Writ for Certiorari in the appeal. The brief can be read here.
• On June 21, 2022, the Supreme Court denied review of Hardeman. Bayer's statement can be found here.

Key Dates

• On May 13, 2019, a jury in the Pilliod v. Monsanto trial overseen by Judge Smith reached a verdict in favor of plaintiffs Alva and Alberta Pilliod. This was the first case in the glyphosate JCCP coordinated proceeding to go to trial.
• On June 17, 2019, Monsanto filed post-trial motions in Pilliod, urging Judge Smith to reverse the jury verdict and enter judgment for Monsanto or order a new trial. The company argued in its briefs that the “verdicts do not reflect the evidence presented in the case; they reflect deep passion and prejudice borne from plaintiffs’ counsel’s improper argument rested on inflammatory, fabricated and irrelevant evidence that should have been excluded…  The resulting trial focused not on ascertaining the truth regarding the state of the science, causation, and compliance with legal duties, but instead on vilifying Monsanto in the abstract.” Read Monsanto’s Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict here, Motion for New Trial here, and Bayer’s statement here.
• On July 25, 2019, Judge Smith issued a ruling on these post-trial motions, reducing the punitive, non- economic, and future medical damages in the case.  Read the Court's ruling here and Bayer's statement here.
• On August 26, 2019, Monsanto filed a Notice of Appeal in the Pilliod glyphosate case with the California Court of Appeal. Read Monsanto’s Notice of Appeal here.
• On February 7, 2020 Monsanto filed its opening appeal brief and motion for judicial notice in the California Court of Appeal, urging the Court to reverse the verdict in the case. Read the briefs here. 
• Briefing from the parties concluded in July 2020.
• On June 22, 2021, oral argument was held before the California Court of Appeal. The Court has 90 days after the argument to release its decision.
• On August 9, 2021, the California Court of Appeal published their decision affirming the lower court's verdict. Monsanto will continue to consider its legal options in this case. 
• On March 17, 2022, Bayer – through its subsidiary Monsanto – filed a petition for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court in its appeal of the Pilliod verdict. Read Bayer's statement can be found here.
• On June 27, 2022, the Supreme Court denied review of Pilliod. Bayer's statement can be found here.

Monsanto filed to appeal the Johnson verdict in the Court of Appeal of the State of California and believes that the liability verdict and damage awards are not supported by the evidence at trial or the law. On March 19, 2021, Bayer announced that it had decided not to file a petition for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court, which will bring an end to the case. The decision was not based on the merits of this case but reflects strategic considerations that the Hardeman case, currently pending in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, will serve as a better case for review by the Supreme Court.

Key Dates

• On August 10, 2018, a jury in Dewayne Johnson v. Monsanto, a case in California state court, found Monsanto liable for Mr. Dewayne Johnson’s non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL). Judge Suzanne R. Bolanos, who oversaw the trial, later reduced the punitive damage award by $211 million, from $289 million to $78 million.
• On April 24, 2019, Monsanto filed to appeal the Johnson verdict in the Court of Appeal of the State of California. Monsanto’s brief argued that the evidence at trial fell far short of the substantial evidence required to support any theory of liability in the case and to prove causation in light of the favorable international consensus among health regulators that glyphosate is not carcinogenic and the extensive body of science on which their assessments rest. The Company argued the liability claims are preempted by federal law as well. Moreover, the brief argued that the Court’s exclusion of EPA and international regulatory evidence, particularly in light of its admission of IARC’s opinion, was reversible error that requires a new trial. Read Monsanto’s appellate brief here, motion for Judicial Notice here, and Bayer’s statement here.
• On July 29, 2019, Monsanto filed its combined reply brief and cross-respondent’s brief in the Johnson glyphosate case in the Court of Appeal of the State of California. Read Monsanto’s Reply Brief and Cross-Respondent’s Brief here. Additionally, amicus briefs in the appeal were filed on August 30 and September 3, 2019 and can be read here.
• On February 11, 2020, Monsanto filed a supplemental appeal brief in the Johnson case in the Court of Appeal of the State of California (First Appellate District, Division One). Read the brief here.
• On June 2, 2020, Monsanto argued telephonically before Justices Jim Humes, Kathleen M. Banke, and Gabriel P. Sanchez of Court of Appeal of the State of California (First Appellate District, Division One) in defense of the company’s appeal.
• On October 21, 2020, the California Supreme Court denied review of Monsanto’s petition for review in the case, leaving in place the liability verdict upheld by the California Court of Appeals.