🎯 Court Upholds $3.5M Verdict Against Monsanto in Roundup Cancer Case: What Consumers Need to Know

Published: June 26, 2025

By: Cohen, Placitella & Roth – Protecting Consumers and Holding Corporations Accountable

🧾 Overview

In a major victory for public health and consumer safety, the Pennsylvania Superior Court has affirmed a $3.5 million jury verdict against Monsanto in Martel v. Monsanto. The court’s ruling protects the rights of individuals harmed by Roundup, the world’s most widely used herbicide, and delivers a strong message of corporate accountability.

This decision is a pivotal moment in the growing wave of Roundup cancer lawsuits.

⚖️ Case Background: Roundup, Cancer, and Chemical Exposure

Plaintiff Kelly J. Martel was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) after repeated use of Roundup weed killer, a product developed by Monsanto. She alleged that Roundup’s combination of glyphosate and POEA (polyethoxylated tallow amine)—a surfactant manufactured by Nouryon—made the herbicide significantly more toxic than consumers were warned.

A Philadelphia jury awarded her:

• 💵 $500,000 in compensatory damages

• 💥 $3 million in punitive damages to punish Monsanto for its reckless conduct

  
  

🧑‍⚖️ Monsanto’s Appeal: What They Argued—and Why They Lost

Monsanto raised four issues on appeal. The Superior Court rejected all of them:

1️⃣ Federal Preemption (FIFRA)

Monsanto claimed that federal pesticide law (FIFRA) barred Martel’s failure-to-warn claim. The court rejected this argument, reaffirming that Pennsylvania law does not conflict with federal pesticide labeling laws. The court relied on a similar ruling in Caranci v. Monsanto.

2️⃣ Lack of Causation Evidence

Monsanto argued that Martel’s few exposures to Roundup couldn’t have caused her cancer. But expert witnesses—including Dr. Barry Levy—testified that glyphosate, POEA, smoking, and hair dye all contributed. The court held that under Pennsylvania law, it’s enough to show Roundup was a substantial factor—not the only one.

3️⃣ Excessive Punitive Damages

Monsanto challenged the $3 million punitive damages as unfair. The court upheld the award, noting that punitive damages are appropriate when companies act with reckless indifference—even if the product is EPA-approved. The jury’s message was clear: Compliance with federal rules does not excuse corporate misconduct.

4️⃣ Improper Venue (Forum Non Conveniens)

Monsanto tried to move the case from Philadelphia to Westmoreland County, claiming witness inconvenience. The court found Monsanto failed to provide affidavits or evidence of real hardship. The plaintiff’s choice of forum was upheld.

🧠 Why This Case Matters to You

This decision is a powerful win for consumers who have been harmed by toxic chemicals in everyday products.

• ✅ Federal pesticide approval does not shield companies from liability

• ✅ Expert evidence of chemical exposure can prove causation

• ✅ Punitive damages are still on the table when misconduct is proven

• ✅ Your right to choose a legal forum matters

🔎

📞 Think You’ve Been Harmed by Roundup? Let’s Talk.

At Cohen, Placitella & Roth, we’ve spent decades fighting for people harmed by dangerous consumer products and environmental toxins. If you or a loved one has been diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma after using Roundup, you may have a legal claim.

👥 Schedule a FREE consultation with our award-winning attorneys today. Let us help you protect your rights and pursue justice.