Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma (NHL) is the cancer at the center of the Roundup mass tort. MDL 2741, currently before Judge Chhabria in the Northern District of California, consolidates federal claims from people who developed NHL after regular glyphosate exposure from Roundup. If you had regular Roundup exposure and received an NHL diagnosis, you may have a claim worth evaluating.
This is not legal advice. Talk to a licensed attorney in your state before making any decisions.
Last updated: May 22, 2026. MDL 2741 status: Active - Northern District of California, Judge Chhabria.
Claimants frequently ask whether leukemia, multiple myeloma, kidney cancer, or other cancers qualify. The short answer: those diagnoses are not currently part of MDL 2741. This article explains which cancers qualify, which do not, what the eligibility criteria look like, and what your options are if you received an NHL diagnosis after Roundup exposure.
Which Cancers Qualify for the Roundup Lawsuit (MDL 2741)?
Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma is the qualifying diagnosis for Roundup claims in MDL 2741. NHL is not a single disease - it is a family of cancers affecting the lymphatic system, with more than 60 recognized sub-types. The sub-types most commonly represented in MDL 2741 filings include:
- ·Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL): the most common aggressive NHL sub-type and the most widely represented in the MDL
- ·Follicular lymphoma: an indolent (slow-growing) NHL sub-type with documented representation in MDL 2741
- ·Mantle cell lymphoma: a rarer but aggressive B-cell NHL sub-type
- ·Marginal zone lymphoma: including MALT lymphoma and splenic marginal zone lymphoma
- ·Lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma: also called Waldenstrom's macroglobulinemia, a slower-growing NHL variant
- ·T-cell lymphomas: less commonly represented but included in some filings
The scientific foundation for the NHL-glyphosate link comes from the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), which classified glyphosate as 'probably carcinogenic to humans' (Group 2A) in 2015. That classification specifically cited mechanistic evidence and epidemiological data pointing to NHL and its sub-types.
Three early bellwether trials - Johnson v. Monsanto (2018), Hardeman v. Monsanto (2019), and Pilliod v. Monsanto (2019) - all resulted in plaintiff verdicts finding that Roundup exposure contributed to the plaintiff's NHL diagnosis. These verdicts established the NHL framework that drives MDL 2741 today.
Which Cancers Are NOT Covered by MDL 2741
Claimants who received diagnoses other than NHL frequently ask whether they qualify. Here is the current picture for each commonly asked cancer:
Leukemia: Not part of MDL 2741 as of May 2026. Some epidemiological research has examined glyphosate's potential links to certain leukemia sub-types, but the scientific evidence that drove MDL 2741's consolidation is specific to NHL. Leukemia claims have not been incorporated into this MDL.
Multiple myeloma: Not currently part of MDL 2741. Multiple myeloma is a plasma cell malignancy distinct from NHL. Some researchers have explored potential glyphosate connections to plasma cell disorders, but this has not reached the same evidentiary threshold.
Kidney cancer (renal cell carcinoma): Not part of MDL 2741. The biological pathway identified in the Roundup research is lymphoma-specific.
Prostate cancer: Not part of MDL 2741. Some individual lawsuits have cited Roundup exposure alongside prostate cancer, but these claims sit outside the consolidated federal MDL.
Bladder cancer, lung cancer, and other solid tumors: These diagnoses are not part of MDL 2741 as of the current update.
If you received one of these diagnoses and had significant Roundup exposure, there may still be legal options worth exploring - but those claims would not flow through MDL 2741 in the same way NHL claims do. Talk to a licensed attorney in your state about your specific situation.
Eligibility Criteria: Do You Have a Qualifying Roundup Claim?
If your diagnosis was Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma, three factors determine whether your situation warrants an attorney evaluation:
1. Exposure type and duration
The typical claimant profile in MDL 2741 involves 1-2 or more years of regular Roundup use. Common exposure contexts:
- ·Residential gardening: regular use on lawns, gardens, or landscaping for multiple growing seasons
- ·Agricultural work: application of Roundup on crops, orchards, or ranches as part of farming operations
- ·Commercial or groundskeeping work: municipal workers, golf course staff, utility corridor crews, landscaping employees
- ·Military or government operations: base maintenance or land management involving Roundup
Brief or single-occasion exposure is harder to connect causally in litigation. Frequency and duration matter.
2. NHL diagnosis
A documented NHL diagnosis from a licensed physician or oncologist is foundational. The sub-type matters for case classification, but all primary NHL sub-types are potentially includable when exposure and timing are also present.
3. Sequence and timing
The Roundup exposure must predate the NHL diagnosis. The typical pattern in viable claims involves documented exposure occurring years before the cancer diagnosis - NHL has a latency period, meaning the biological changes that lead to NHL develop over time. Your attorney will want to understand when your exposure began, how long it lasted, and when you were diagnosed.
If all three elements apply to your situation, speaking with an attorney experienced in MDL 2741 is the appropriate next step. This is not legal advice - the evaluation of your specific claim requires a licensed attorney in your state.
What Compensation Has Looked Like in Roundup Cases
Reported settlement outcomes in Roundup litigation have varied substantially based on factors specific to each claim:
- ·The NHL sub-type and its aggressiveness (DLBCL typically involves more intensive treatment than follicular lymphoma)
- ·The treatment required (chemotherapy regimens, stem cell transplants, ongoing maintenance therapy)
- ·The degree and quality of exposure documentation
- ·The claimant's age at diagnosis and long-term prognosis
- ·Medical costs and demonstrable lost income
- ·The jurisdiction and the attorney handling the case
Reported individual NHL settlement amounts in the Roundup litigation have ranged from low five figures for cases with less severe diagnoses and limited exposure documentation to seven-figure outcomes for cases involving aggressive NHL sub-types, extensive documented exposure, substantial medical costs, and significant life disruption.
Bayer, which acquired Monsanto in 2018, has resolved a substantial volume of Roundup cases. Individual case outcomes depend entirely on the specific facts of each claim.
This is not a promise or guarantee of any specific outcome. Talk to a licensed attorney about what your specific situation may support.
Why the Filing Window Matters
Statutes of limitations for Roundup claims vary by state and by individual circumstances. General ranges:
- ·Most states apply a 2-3 year statute of limitations for personal injury claims
- ·Some states have shorter windows and some allow longer periods
- ·Many states apply the 'discovery rule,' which starts the clock when you first knew or reasonably should have known of a potential connection between your NHL and Roundup exposure - not necessarily at diagnosis
Key practical points:
- ·Do not assume you have missed the deadline without speaking to an attorney. The discovery rule can extend filing windows in meaningful ways depending on your state and when you first became aware of the Roundup-NHL link.
- ·If a family member died from NHL and you are considering a wrongful death claim, additional state-specific rules and deadlines may apply.
- ·Claimants who were minors at the time of diagnosis may benefit from tolling provisions in some states.
Statute of limitations varies by state - talk to a licensed attorney in your state to understand the specific window that applies to your situation.
For a state-by-state breakdown of Roundup filing windows, see our Roundup lawsuit statute of limitations guide.
How to Document Your Roundup Exposure
Exposure documentation strengthens a Roundup claim. Attorneys evaluating MDL 2741 claims commonly look for:
Purchase records: Receipts or order histories from home improvement retailers, online retailers, or warehouse stores showing repeated Roundup purchases over multiple years. Amazon order histories, Costco membership purchase records, and similar digital trails can all be relevant.
Employment and work records: W-2s, job titles, duty descriptions, or employer records establishing that your role involved Roundup application. Agricultural pay stubs, groundskeeping job descriptions, and utility maintenance records can support occupational exposure claims.
Property records and context: Evidence that your property size, type, and use patterns were consistent with the level of exposure you describe.
Medical records: Oncologist notes, pathology reports confirming NHL sub-type and diagnosis date, and treatment records showing what your NHL required.
Personal documentation: Notes, photos, or logs documenting your Roundup use. A written timeline of when you used Roundup and how often can provide useful context even if formal records are limited.
You do not need complete documentation to begin the evaluation process. An attorney experienced in MDL 2741 will identify what documentation you already have and what additional evidence may be obtainable.
How Last10Legal Connects Roundup Claimants with Attorneys
Last10Legal is a legal matching service - not a law firm and not a source of legal advice. The process for Roundup claimants:
- You complete a free intake form describing your NHL diagnosis, your Roundup exposure history, your state, and basic case details.
- Last10Legal routes your inquiry to a single licensed attorney in our network who handles mass tort claims and is admitted in your state or in the MDL forum. One inquiry goes to one attorney - not to a list of firms competing for your case.
- You receive an initial consultation with no upfront cost and no commitment required.
- You decide whether to move forward.
Mass tort cases are typically handled on a contingency fee basis: the attorney's fee is paid as a percentage of a recovery if one occurs. You pay no legal fees out of pocket and owe nothing if there is no recovery.
This approach differs from plaintiff firms that represent clients directly, from informational websites that provide general information without routing claims, and from lead networks that sell your information to multiple firms simultaneously.
Last10Legal routes one claimant inquiry to one attorney - the attorney you speak with first is the attorney evaluating your case.
Are you a mass tort attorney looking for Roundup claimant leads? See how Last10Legal's mass tort lead matching works for law firms.