Two Distinct Herbicide Tracks
Herbicide litigation covers two chemically and legally distinct groups. Glyphosate claims allege that the widely used broad-spectrum weedkiller caused non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Paraquat claims allege that a restricted-use agricultural herbicide caused Parkinson disease.
The exposure populations differ. Glyphosate claims include agricultural workers, landscapers, groundskeepers and residential users, since the product was sold to consumers. Paraquat is restricted to licensed applicators, so its claimant population is occupational.
Warnings, Science and Preemption
Both are failure-to-warn and design-defect claims. Glyphosate litigation turned substantially on the classification of the compound as a probable human carcinogen by an international research agency, and on internal company documents concerning the scientific record.
The central defence is federal preemption: that pesticide labelling is governed by federal law and that a state-law duty to add a cancer warning conflicts with it. Courts have divided, and this question has been the most consequential legal issue in the litigation.
Cases Covered in This Section
This section tracks 6 active or resolved matters. Each has its own detailed page covering the allegations, who may qualify, and what the process involves.
- Paraquat Lawsuits: Herbicide Exposure and Parkinson Disease Claims
- CLL Roundup Lawsuit: What to Know
- Roundup Multiple Myeloma Lawsuit: The Science, and a Proposed $7.25 Billion Deal
- Paraquat Lawsuit: Parkinson's Disease & Settlement Update 2026
- Roundup Lawsuit: Glyphosate Cancer Claims & Bayer Settlement
- Roundup Cancer Lawsuit Lawyer: How to Choose One and What to Expect
Who May Have a Claim
Glyphosate claims generally involve repeated exposure over a period of years followed by a diagnosis of non-Hodgkin lymphoma or a related haematological malignancy. Occupational users have the best documented exposure, though residential claims have succeeded.
Paraquat claims generally involve licensed applicators, mixers, loaders or farm workers with documented exposure, followed by a Parkinson diagnosis. Applicator licensing and purchase records are frequently the key evidence.
Verdicts, Settlements and Appeals
Glyphosate litigation has produced very large jury verdicts, substantial reductions on appeal, and a major settlement programme, while new filings have continued. The preemption question has repeatedly reached appellate courts.
Paraquat litigation is consolidated in multidistrict litigation and has moved more slowly, with the admissibility of the plaintiffs general causation evidence the pivotal issue.
Free Legal Evaluation
Do You Qualify to File a Claim?
Our network of verified plaintiff attorneys offers free, no-obligation case evaluations. Contingency fee representation means you pay nothing unless you win.
Herbicide and Weedkiller Lawsuits: Frequently Asked Questions
Answers to the most common questions about this case and your legal options.
What cancer is linked to glyphosate?
The claims centre on non-Hodgkin lymphoma and related haematological malignancies. The litigation gained momentum after an international research agency classified the compound as a probable human carcinogen, a conclusion regulators have disputed.
Do I need occupational exposure to claim?
Not necessarily for glyphosate, which was sold to consumers, so residential and landscaping use can support a claim. Paraquat is restricted to licensed applicators, so those claims are almost entirely occupational.
What is the paraquat allegation?
That exposure to the herbicide causes or substantially contributes to Parkinson disease, and that the risk was known but not adequately warned about. Claimants are generally licensed applicators, mixers, loaders and farm workers.
What is the preemption defence?
The argument that federal pesticide labelling law governs what a product label must say, so a state-law claim requiring an additional cancer warning conflicts with federal law and is barred. Courts have divided on it and it remains the central legal question.
Is it too late to file?
Not necessarily. State limitation periods apply, commonly two to three years, generally running from diagnosis or from when the connection to exposure was reasonably discoverable rather than from when exposure occurred.
Legal Disclaimer
This article is general legal information, not legal advice, and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Case status, eligibility criteria, and any amounts described are as reported at the date shown and may change. Consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction about your own situation.