US supreme court to hear case that could weaken consumers' ability to sue for failure to warn of product risks
Source: The Guardian
Mon 27 Apr 2026 07.30 EDT
Last modified on Mon 27 Apr 2026 07.31 EDT
The US supreme court will hear arguments in a key pesticide regulation case on Monday, setting the stage for a ruling that could weaken the ability of consumers to sue companies for failing to warn of product risks.
The case centers on glyphosate – a weed-killing chemical used in the popular Roundup brand and numerous other herbicide products. The chemical has been scientifically linked to cancer in multiple studies, and was classified a probable human carcinogen by an arm of the World Health Organization in 2015.
Monsanto, the company that introduced glyphosate to the world in the 1970s and is now a part of the German conglomerate Bayer, has spent the last decade fighting more than 100,000 lawsuits claiming it failed to warn customers of cancer risks.
While maintaining that its products don’t cause cancer, Monsanto is asking the supreme court to rule that under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (Fifra), it cannot be held liable for failing to warn of a cancer risk if the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has not found such a risk exists and not required such a warning. The EPA’s position is that glyphosate is “unlikely” to be carcinogenic.
Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/apr/27/supreme-court-pesticides-case
= new reply since forum marked as read
In the name of Heebus Jeebus. Or some shit like that 
"Praise the bored!!!"
The lawyers who specialize in product liability suits have won lawsuits against major manufacturers, and some of the victims have gotten mind-boggling awards in the past 40-or-so years. This is an industry in itself and lawyers are always looking for new victims. The liability insurance premiums are barely affordable for local mom-and-pop shops, restaurants, and small service providers. It's a few greedy lawyers that have brought this on.
