Monsanto has agreed to pay $39.5 million to resolve allegations that they misrepresented the active ingredient in their Roundup weed killer.
The settlement would benefit people in the United States who purchased a Roundup product advertised with claims that glyphosate only targets plants. The Class period would depend on the applicable statute of limitations in Class Member states for false advertising or breach of warranty claims.
Under the settlement, consumers will be able to collect a payment based on the products they purchased. Payments will reportedly represent 10 percent of a consumer’s weighted average purchase price of their Roundup purchases. Payment amounts will vary but the settlement motion estimates consumers can collect between $0.37 and $10.63 per unit depending on the size of their purchased bottle.
In addition to covering Class Member payments, the settlement will provide up to $1.3 million to cover settlement administrative costs. Monsanto has agreed up to 25 percent of the funds dedicated to the Class will go towards attorneys’ fees.
One key aspect of the deal is that no money will revert to Monsanto if it goes unclaimed. Instead, the remaining funds will reportedly be paid out to various charitable organizations. These beneficiaries would be chosen at a later date.
In addition to financial compensation, the proposed settlement would provide label changes to Roundup marketing statements. Instead of including claims that the targeted enzyme is found only in plants, the new labeling will reportedly say that the weed killer targets an enzyme which is “essential for plant growth.”
Plaintiff Lisa Jones recently asked Missouri federal court for preliminary approval from the deal. If the settlement is granted preliminary approval, claims may be filed. Jones argues that the settlement represents a fair outcome for Class Members and avoids the risk of dismissal or a loss at trial.
“In light of these substantial risks, the $39.55 million settlement fund represents a favorable recovery for the class—according to Monsanto’s expert’s damages model, more than the class could have recovered even with a complete victory,” Jones notes in her Roundup class action settlement motion.
Jones adds that, based on the label changes, “the lawsuits and settlement, if approved, will benefit not only Class Members, but the general public as well.”
In her 2019 Roundup class action, Jones argued that the weed killer products were falsely advertised.
Monsanto allegedly advertised their products’ active ingredient, glyphosate, as affecting only plants. Because the targeted enzyme is found only in plants, Monsanto reportedly said that people and plants would not be affected by Roundup products.
Jones claimed that these statements were false and misleading. The targeted enzyme is allegedly found in both people and pets and even plays a vital role in the immune system, digestion, and brain function, Jones maintains.
In addition to relying on issues in the Jones case, the Roundup class action settlement reportedly gained support from Blitz v. Monsanto in Wisconsin federal court. Litigation in this and other cases contributed to the settlement due to the discovery conducted in other courts.
The Blitz plaintiffs reportedly filed their Roundup class action lawsuit in June 2017. In 2019, their bid for Class certification was denied. After this, plaintiff Thomas Blitz agreed to continue his claims individually. However, Blitz recently filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss his claims.
Monsanto’s parent company Bayer has confirmed in a statement to Law360 that the settlement has been proposed after negotiations.
“The Roundup advertising class action has been settled to the satisfaction of all parties subject to court approval,” Bayer said in their statement.
However, the company notes that this settlement does not relate to other claims against the company alleging that Roundup is associated with cancer. These claims are consolidated in a product liability multidistrict litigation centered in the Northern District of California.
According to plaintiffs in these lawsuits, glyphosate found in Roundup is associated with a higher risk of developing cancer – specifically non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.
Would you qualify for this Roundup false advertising class action settlement? Do you think the proposed deal is fair? Let us know in the comments section below.
Top Class Actions will post updates to this class action settlement as they become available. For the latest updates, keep checking TopClassActions.com or sign up for our free newsletter. You can also receive notifications when this article is updated by using your free Top Class Actions account and clicking the “Follow Article” button at the top of the post.
Plaintiffs and the proposed Class are represented by Kim E. Richman and Clark A. Binkley of Richman Law Group, Bryce B. Bell and Mark W. Schmitz of Bell Law LLC and Michael L. Baum and R. Brent Wisner of Baum Hedlund Aristei & Goldman PC.
The Roundup False Advertising Class Action Lawsuit is Jones, et al. v. Monsanto Co., Case No. 4:19-cv-00102, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri.
Top Class Actions is a Proud Member of the American Bar Association
LEGAL INFORMATION IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE
©2008 – 2021 Top Class Actions® LLC
Various Trademarks held by their respective owners
This website is not intended for viewing or usage by European Union citizens.
Please note: Top Class Actions is not a settlement administrator or law firm. Top Class Actions is a legal news source that reports on class action lawsuits, class action settlements, drug injury lawsuits and product liability lawsuits. Top Class Actions does not process claims and we cannot advise you on the status of any class action settlement claim. You must contact the settlement administrator or your attorney for any updates regarding your claim status, claim form or questions about when payments are expected to be mailed out.