Roundup Class Action Says Weed Killer Falsely Labeled to Deceive Consumers

Top Class Actions’s website and social media posts use affiliate links. If you make a purchase using such links, we may receive a commission, but it will not result in any additional charges to you. Please review our Affiliate Link Disclosure for more information.

Roundup Weed and Grass Killer attacks beneficial bacteria in a way that runs contrary to its labeling, according to a New York class action plaintiff.

Plaintiff Mario Washington has filed a false advertising lawsuit challenging the labeling on defendant Monsanto’s Roundup Weed and Grass Killer. According to Washington, the promotional materials for Roundup say that it targets an enzyme “found in plants but not in people or pets.”

Washington says that representation is false. He claims the active ingredient in Roundup targets a beneficial bacterial enzyme found in both humans and pets. As a result of that alleged misrepresentation, consumers are being deceived into purchasing a dangerous product that does exactly what they expect it not to do, he says.

Roundup uses a chemical called glyphosate, invented and marketed by Monsanto after DDT was banned. Washington says Monsanto has been marketing glyphosate under the brand name Roundup since 1974. In the late 1990s, the company boosted Roundup sales by introducing a line of genetically engineered crops designed to resist the effects of glyphosate, he says.

Glyphosate works by inhibiting the enzyme EPSP synthase, an enzyme used by certain organisms but not by others. Weeds depend on EPSP synthase to process aromatic amino acids, Washington says. But so do certain beneficial bacteria that live in the gut of mammals, including humans and pets.

According to Washington, glyphosate can enter the human body through the ingestion of residual weed killer on foods. Pets may also ingest it by eating plants that have been treated with Roundup. Humans who handle Roundup may also be exposed to glyphosate through inhalation or dermal absorption.

Monsanto supposedly knows the representations on the labeling for Roundup are contrary to the truth of how glyphosate works, Washington claims. As the inventor of glyphosate, Monsanto allegedly knows the bacterial enzyme it targets is present in both humans and animals, not just weeds.

Yet despite that knowledge, he says, the company continues to represent that Roundup targets only plants.

By using these alleged misstatements, Washington says, Monsanto is exploiting consumer’s interest in weed killers that target weeds without targeting people or animals. Consumers are willing to pay more for such a product, he says.

Were it not for the allegedly false labeling on Roundup, the same consumers would not pay as much for the product, or they would not purchase it at all, Washington claims.

Washington proposes to represent a statewide plaintiff Class consisting of all persons in New York who purchased Roundup weed and grass killer during the applicable statutory limitations period.

He seeks a court injunction barring Monsanto from continuing the allegedly deceptive advertising complained of here. He is also asking for an award of actual, statutory and punitive damages as may be available, restitution and disgorgement of related revenues, and reimbursement of attorneys’ fees and court costs.

Washington is represented by attorney Michael J. Gabrielli of Gabrielli Levitt LLP.

The Roundup False Advertising Class Action Lawsuit is Mario Washington v. Monsanto Co., Case No. 2:17-cv-02216, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.