This article was originally published at 11:27 a.m. CST on Tuesday, Feb. 17. It was last updated with additional information at 1:24 p.m. CST on Tuesday, Feb. 17.

**

LINCOLN, Neb. (DTN) -- Bayer announced on Tuesday a proposed $7.3 billion national class settlement to resolve current and future non-Hodgkin lymphoma injury claims against its glyphosate-based Roundup weedkiller to include a long-term claims program.

Leading plaintiff law firms representing the class filed a motion seeking preliminary approval of the settlement with the 22nd Judicial Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis in Missouri, according to a news release from Bayer.

To fund the class, Bayer said it would be making declining capped annual payments for up to 21 years, following court approval.

"The long-term payment stream will provide the company with both greater certainty and control regarding its litigation costs for current claims and potential future claimants," the company said on Tuesday.

Bayer said the proposed class settlement, combined with the Supreme Court's decision to review a Roundup case, are "independently necessary and mutually reinforcing steps" in the company's attempts to contain the Roundup litigation.

Bayer said it would use a secured bank loan facility of $8 billion to fund the resolution of the cases.

"The proposed class settlement agreement, together with the Supreme Court case, provides an essential path out of the litigation uncertainty and enables us to devote our full attention to furthering the innovations that lie at the core of our mission: health for all, hunger for none," said Bill Anderson, CEO of Bayer.

"This litigation and the resulting cost underscore the need for guidance from the Supreme Court on clear regulation in American agriculture."

The settlement covers plaintiffs who allege exposure to Roundup prior to Feb. 17, 2026, and have a medical diagnosis of NHL now or receive a medical diagnosis of NHL before the end of a 16-year period following final approval of the agreement, according to Bayer.

"The proposed class settlement differs markedly from the prior class settlement put forth by the company in 2020," Bayer said. "The new proposed settlement is a long-term compensation program, with funding for up to 21 years, and is structured to address the needs of both present and future claimants through a common claims program, managed by a professional claims administrator. The prior proposed class settlement was a short-term program limited to four years with far less funding, and future litigation beyond four years was subject to determinations of an expert science panel, a feature that is not part of the current proposed program."

Christopher A. Seeger, an attorney with Seeger Weiss LLP, a firm that represents Roundup plaintiffs, said the settlement provides clarity in the cases.

"This proposed settlement represents a historic step toward bringing justice and financial relief to thousands of people across the country who developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma after exposure to Roundup," he said.

"After years of intense litigation and uncertainty, this agreement provides a clear, streamlined path to compensation -- delivering speed, transparency and security for those already suffering, while preserving future claimants' rights amid the pending Supreme Court review. We also expect the compensation provided to class members to be higher than the per-claim averages in other recent Monsanto settlements."

In addition, Bayer said it had reached agreements to settle "certain other Roundup cases" on confidential terms.

In January 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear a Bayer Roundup case that could bring product-liability lawsuits to a close.

Bayer argued the Supreme Court should hear Monsanto Company v John L. Durnell to resolve a split among lower courts on whether federal labeling laws preempt state labeling laws, while attorneys for the non-Hodgkin's lymphoma patient Durnell contended there was not a lower court split.

Last summer, the Missouri Court of Appeals joined the U.S. Court of Appeal for the Ninth and 11th circuits and state appellate courts in California and Oregon in holding that federal law does not preempt state laws. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled the opposite in another case, according to Bayer's filing.

"The expectation of Supreme Court review of the cross-cutting question in this litigation -- whether state claims based on failure-to-warn theories are preempted by federal law -- helped make this settlement possible," Bayer said in a news release.

"The Supreme Court case is unaffected by the settlement and is critical to resolving substantial outstanding damage awards subject to pending appeals, which are not covered by the settlement. A positive ruling on the question before the Supreme Court should largely foreclose present and future claims based on state label-based warning theories -- including the pending appeals, as well as opt-outs from the class. A favorable ruling by the Supreme Court would provide essential regulatory clarity for companies who seek to bring currently approved and new products to market, addressing their ability to serve U.S. farmers and consumers."

Read more on DTN:

"SCOTUS to Hear Roundup Liability Case," https://www.dtnpf.com/….

Todd Neeley can be reached at todd.neeley@dtn.com

Follow him on social platform X @DTNeeley

(c) Copyright 2026 DTN, LLC. All rights reserved.