More than 150 lawyers from 93 law firms have filed a brief opposing a $1.325 billion Roundup settlement, saying it protects Monsanto while not going far enough for consumers.

In the brief, filed March 5, 2021, in federal court in California, 167 lawyers urge the Court to deny this second attempt at a settlement agreement.

As it stands, the proposed settlement would eliminate Class Members’ claims for punitive damages and medical monitoring, according to a news release from law firm Bailey & Glasser LLP, which authored the brief.

In addition, a “secret science panel” would be established to determine if its members agree with the three juries hearing evidence that Roundup causes non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.

And finally, the settlement would halt all Roundup litigation against Monsanto for four years, including all future claims from people who claim exposure to the weedkiller caused their cancer — even from those who don’t currently have any injury or cancer diagnosis but may in the future, according to the news release.

Class Members in the Roundup settlement in question are individuals who are citizens or residents of the United States as of Feb. 3, 2021, who claim they have been exposed to Roundup products through their application and who, as of Feb. 3, had not already begun an individual lawsuit or retained counsel for an individual personal injury or false advertising related to that exposure. All derivative claimants are also included.

The proposed settlement would provide Class Members with awards of $10,000 to $200,000 — or even more in certain circumstances.

“Last July, the Court quickly and forcefully rejected the first proposed class action settlement of Roundup victims’ future claims, which it called Plan A,” Bailey & Glasser’s Arthur H. Bryant, the lead author of the brief, said in the release. “This second, rehashed Plan B deserves the same fate.”

U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria in July expressed skepticism over the proposed “Plan A” settlement.

“In an area where the science may be evolving, how could it be appropriate to lock in a decision from a panel of scientists for all future cases?” Judge Chhabria wrote.

He also expressed concerns about whether it was constitutional — or even legal — “to delegate the function of deciding the general causation question (that is, whether and at what dose Roundup is capable of causing cancer) from judges and juries to a panel of scientists.”

In addition, Judge Chhabria wrote he was concerned about the way the Class was defined.

“Given the diffuse, contingent, and indeterminate nature of the proposed class, it seems unlikely that most class members would have an opportunity to consider in a meaningful way (if at all) whether it is in their best interest to join the class,” he wrote, adding: “[T]he idea that a migrant farmworker or someone who is employed part time by a small gardening business would receive proper notification (much less the opportunity to consider their options in a meaningful way) is dubious.”

Just days later, a group of plaintiffs withdrew their motion for the Court to approve the settlement and revised the agreement.

In the news release, Bryant said the “Plan B” proposed settlement would allow “Monsanto to keep selling Roundup and causing cancer as long as it wants.

“There is simply no legal basis for this — or many other aspects of the proposed settlement. It’s an unconscionable gift to Monsanto.”

A hearing on the proposed settlement is scheduled for March 31, 2021.

What do you think of the proposed Roundup settlement? Let us know in the comment section below.

The Monsanto Roundup Lawsuits are In Re: Roundup Products Liability Litigation, Case No. 3:16-md-02741, and Ramirez et al. v. Monsanto Co., Case No. 3:19-cv-02224, both in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.