$175 Million Verdict Called ‘Fair and Proportional’
Monsanto had also contended that the jury award to Caranci—who developed cancer after years of Roundup use—was excessive and legally unsound. But the court saw no reason to disturb the jury’s judgment.
While Monsanto expressed deep dissatisfaction with the decision and hinted at potential further appeals, the Superior Court’s opinion delivers a firm message: corporate responsibility under state law can coexist with federal pesticide regulations.
A Monsanto spokesperson said the company is “considering its legal options,” maintaining that federal preemption should have invalidated the Caranci claim and others like it.
Legal Landscape Shifting for Roundup Lawsuits
This ruling adds fuel to the already raging legal fire Monsanto faces. Thousands of Roundup-related lawsuits are pending across the country, many hinging on the same failure-to-warn argument. The Pennsylvania court’s refusal to follow the Third Circuit’s path could create a patchwork of rulings and appeals across jurisdictions.
As the dust settles in this latest courtroom battle, one thing is clear: Monsanto’s legal war over Roundup is far from over, and state courts may yet prove to be formidable arenas where jury power and regulatory interpretation collide.
The Caranci case now returns to the lower court for further proceedings, but with a $175 million tailwind that suggests Monsanto’s legal turbulence is just beginning.
