A proposed class settlement pending in state court in St. Louis would resolve Roundup claims for a class defined by exposure rather than by diagnosis. Monsanto has agreed to pay up to $7.25 billion. The court granted preliminary approval on March 4, 2026, the window to opt out or object closed on June 4, and a fairness hearing — moved once already, from August 19 — is set for September 14, 2026. Registration and claim submission are not open, and nothing is payable unless the court gives final approval. The unusual feature is the second subclass: people who were exposed to Roundup products and have never been diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma are class members now, and unless they excluded themselves in time, a future diagnosis is a claim inside the program rather than a lawsuit. Awards run from $6,000 to $165,000 and are scheduled to be paid out across seventeen to twenty-one years.
Where the case is
The case is Randall King, et al. v. Monsanto Company, No. 2622-CC00325, before Judge Timothy J. Boyer of the 22nd Judicial Circuit Court in the City of St. Louis, Missouri. Plaintiffs moved for preliminary approval on February 17, 2026 and the court granted it on March 4. The deadline to opt out or to object was June 4, 2026. The fairness hearing, at which the court decides whether to approve the settlement, was rescheduled from August 19 to September 14, 2026 at 9:30 a.m. Central.
Until that decision, the program is on paper only. The administrator’s notice is explicit that registration and claim submission are not available while final approval is pending.
Who is in the class
Class membership turns on exposure. It covers U.S. citizens, and non-citizens who were living in the United States on March 4, 2026, who had contact with — or inhaled, ingested or absorbed — Roundup products in the United States before February 17, 2026, whether by applying the products, paying for them or their application, taking part in or watching an application, or otherwise having reason to know of the exposure. Immigration status does not affect membership. People who died before March 4, 2026 are included if they met the criteria at the time of death.
- Subclass 1 — people diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma as of March 4, 2026 who meet the exposure requirements
- Subclass 2 — people who meet the exposure requirements and have not been diagnosed, who may claim only if a diagnosis comes later
- Derivative claimants — a spouse, parent or dependent child, or anyone with a legal relationship allowing suit because of a class member’s exposure
- Representative claimants — legal representatives, executors and administrators acting for someone who has died or is incapacitated
- Outside the class — anyone with a claim pending in MDL No. 2741 on February 17, 2026, unless that person asked to be included and dismissed the MDL claim
What it pays, and to whom
The program sorts claimants by how the exposure happened. An occupational claimant was exposed for more than 80 hours in an agricultural, industrial, turf or ornamental job that produced more than half their income, or more than $15,000, in at least one year — proved with employment, payroll, licensing or tax records. Everyone else who used the products is a residential claimant.
- Occupational claimants: awards in the range of $60,000 to $165,000
- Residential claimants: $20,000 to $40,000, with a faster reduced option of $7,700 to $14,500 for those who prefer not to wait for full processing
- Anyone diagnosed at 78 or older: $10,000, or $6,000 on the faster reduced option
- Additional payments for extraordinary circumstances, for heavy home use, and expedited payment in cases of extreme hardship
The settlement is designed to pay claims for seventeen to twenty-one years, which is why the not-yet-diagnosed subclass exists at all: the notice explains that non-Hodgkin lymphoma can take ten to fifteen years or longer to appear after exposure to certain chemicals.
What class members give up
A class member who stayed in gave up the right to sue Monsanto over Roundup and non-Hodgkin lymphoma — compensatory damages, punitive damages and medical monitoring alike. There are narrow exits. A claimant who submits a valid claim and is not paid within five years of their claim eligibility date, or who is not paid before the funds run out, or who rejects an award through the required procedure, may become an exiting class member: $500 and the return of the right to sue for injuries and losses, though not for punitive damages. Someone never diagnosed before the sixteenth annual payment date gets all their rights back at the end of the program.
Why the plaintiffs’ side recommends it
The notice is unusually candid about that. Class counsel point to four risks of continuing: that federal law preempts label-based claims, that Monsanto’s financial position could end in a bankruptcy and years of delay, that the volume of pending Roundup cases means only a small number reach trial each year, and that any individual case can be dismissed before trial or lost at trial or on appeal.
The first of those risks was pending at the Supreme Court when the notice was written. On June 25, 2026 the Court decided it, in Monsanto Co. v. Durnell, in Monsanto’s favor on the failure-to-warn theory.
A class defined by exposure rather than diagnosis asks healthy people to decide today about an illness they may never have.
If you think you are in it
The dates that have passed cannot be reopened by asking. What is still ahead is the September 14 hearing, and — if the court approves the settlement — a 180-day window to register that opens after final approval, with claims due within 180 days after any appeals are resolved. A later diagnosis has its own clock: six years from the diagnosis, or the sixteenth annual payment date, whichever comes first.
What helps in every version of this is the same evidence a lawsuit would need: pathology confirming the subtype, the date of diagnosis, and something contemporaneous that shows the exposure — employment and payroll records for occupational use, receipts or purchase history for use at home. If you opted out in time, or had a claim pending in the MDL, your route is a different one, and it is worth a conversation rather than a guess.
This article is general information about how these cases work. It is not legal advice, it does not create an attorney-client relationship, and no two claims are alike. If something here sounds like your situation, the useful next step is a conversation about the facts.
