The State of the Docket: Is There Still Opportunity?

After years of massive, high-profile settlements—with Bayer allocating billions of dollars to resolve roughly 100,000 claims—many law firms assume the Roundup litigation is finally winding down.

Here’s the reality: they are looking in the wrong place.

While the highest-volume cases have settled, the Roundup docket remains one of the largest and most valuable in the country. Approximately 61,000 active lawsuits are still pending across state and federal courts. More importantly, recent plaintiff victories in state courts—some resulting in staggering nine-figure jury awards—prove the litigation still has sharp, unpredictable teeth.

The challenge today isn’t mass volume; it’s surgical acquisition. For law firms seeking a predictable, high-value caseload in 2025, the strategy must shift from a broad ad spend to a precise vetting system. Only the claims that pass the toughest legal and scientific scrutiny are worth the marketing investment.

So, what’s the financial implication? To underline this commitment, Bayer has reportedly set aside over $16 billion in total funds for settlements and litigation reserves, with an additional $1.37 billion recently added to address the ongoing claims. The corporate goal is to “significantly contain” the litigation by the end of 2026. This timeline pressures the entire market and means the next 12–18 months are critical for firms looking to finalize their inventory of viable cases.

Section 1: The Three Essential Vetting Pillars

To justify the cost of pursuing Roundup lawsuit leads, a high-quality lead must be qualified against three non-negotiable legal and scientific criteria. This is the test your intake process must pass every time:

1. Proving Latency and Specific Diagnosis

A viable case requires a clear, undeniable connection between exposure and injury. For Roundup lawsuit leads, this means confirming a specific cancer developed only after years of continuous use.

• The Latency Period: Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma (NHL)—a specific type of blood cancer—typically develops 5 to 15 years after first exposure. If a lead used the product recently, or was diagnosed outside this latency window, they’re a quick disqualification.
• The Scientific Focus: While NHL is the primary cancer, the strongest cases often involve specific subtypes like Diffuse Large B-cell Lymphoma (DLBCL) and Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL) where the medical proof of causation is stronger.

The Real Cost: Wasted Attorney Hours

Every unqualified lead that slips through your filters requires a senior paralegal or attorney to review the file, check medical records, and issue a formal denial. This non-billable time is the true drain on profitability. An optimized intake system eliminates this administrative burden by failing the lead before it ever touches a lawyer’s desk.

2. Verified Proof of Frequent Exposure

The defense aggressively challenges the frequency and duration of use. A lead claiming exposure isn’t enough; they need documentation.

• The Highest Value: The most valuable claims typically involve occupational exposure (farmers, landscapers) because the duration and intensity are easily provable. Residential users must show consistent, long-term application over many years.
• The Vetting Solution: A strong intake process goes beyond simple questions. It actively helps the claimant gather documentation—old receipts, invoices, employment records, or even photographic evidence. Leads without specific product use dates and verifiable frequency of exposure are financially high-risk and rarely make it past the first round of discovery.

3. The State Court Advantage: Navigating Preemption

The litigation’s current value is heavily influenced by Bayer’s pursuit of Federal Preemption (arguing federal labeling laws should block state lawsuits) at the U.S. Supreme Court.

• The Opportunity: While this critical battle continues, state courts—particularly those in high-verdict states like Missouri and Pennsylvania—are standing firm and delivering massive plaintiff awards. The refusal of state Supreme Courts to overturn these verdicts gives plaintiffs enormous leverage.
• The Smart Strategy: Law firms must acquire leads who give them the best venue options. Leads with residency and filing eligibility in states that have already upheld large plaintiff verdicts represent the highest immediate value and lowest risk of being wiped out by a Federal Preemption ruling.

Section 2: Advanced Marketing for a Mature Tort

Since all the low-hanging fruit is gone, law firms must move past generic advertising and adopt precision strategies to reach the remaining, highly specific pool of qualified claimants.

Leveraging Data for Hyper-Targeting

Roundup’s long history allows for highly refined targeting. Marketing can be hyper-focused on demographics known to have high occupational exposure, such as older males with long careers in agriculture, landscaping, or parks management. This demographic is best reached through a multi-channel approach.

The Financial Challenge: Why CPL Stays High

Since competitors are bidding on the same core keywords, the CPL (Cost Per Lead) remains high. Stop focusing on paying less per click. The winning strategy is ensuring you pay zero for unqualified leads.

The Long-Term View: Investing Beyond the Verdict

For a complex case like Roundup, the client is signed in the first hour, not the next week. Your intake system must instantly screen against all three sections above (Latency, Exposure Proof, and Diagnosis) to keep your legal team focused only on high-potential cases.

MassTortsCo. leverages its 10+ years of experience and AI-Driven Vetting to deliver Roundup lawsuit leads pre-qualified against the most recent legal criteria. That’s how you gain the competitive edge in a mature docket.

Ready to maximize your return on the Roundup docket?

Call to Action: Contact MassTortsCo. today to review a customized intake strategy designed to find, vet, and convert the remaining high-value claimants in the Roundup litigation.