Overview
2025 was a watershed year for pesticide litigation, marked by massive jury verdicts and a deepening divide over whether federal law shields manufacturers from state-level lawsuits. At the heart of the conflict is the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the question of “federal preemption” – does EPA approval of a label prevent consumers from suing under state “failure to warn” laws?
State Activity
Missouri emerged as a primary battleground in 2025. The state Supreme Court solidified this role by declining to review two major cases, effectively upholding a $611 million judgment in Anderson v. Monsanto[1] and a $1.25 million award in Durnell v. Monsanto.[2] Missouri courts ruled that state warning requirements are consistent with and not different from federal standards, meaning EPA approval does not grant manufacturers blanket immunity.
The litigation spread nationwide with historic results:
- Georgia: A jury awarded a staggering $2.065 billion in Barnes v. Monsanto,[3] though Bayer later settled for an undisclosed amount to vacate the verdict.
- Pennsylvania: The Superior Court upheld a $177 million judgment, similarly rejecting the federal preemption defense.[4]
- Washington: Cases began flowing back from California’s national multidistrict litigation (MDL) to Washington state courts, opening a new front in the Pacific Northwest.
By December 2025, a “circuit split” reached a climax, pitting different federal and state courts against each other.[5] This contradiction prompted the U.S. Solicitor General to urge the U.S. Supreme Court to take up the Durnell case to provide a national resolution, which the Supreme Court did on January 16, 2026.[6]
In response to these verdicts, 2025 saw a coordinated push for state-level “shield laws” to protect the agricultural industry from litigation.
- North Dakota (HB 1318): Became the first state to decree that an EPA-approved label satisfies all state “duty to warn” requirements.
- Georgia (SB 144): Passed a law limiting liability if a label is consistent with EPA health assessments.
- Iowa (SF 394): Attempted to provide “blanket immunity,” though the bill stalled in the House after passing the Senate.
These legislative actions reflect a growing tension between protecting consumer rights to seek damages and ensuring national uniformity in chemical labeling.
The Kansas Experience
The Kansas legislature is currently navigating a legal minefield with H.B. 2476, a bill often referred to as a “pesticide shield law.”[7] While manufacturers are understandably looking for a way out of the “rock and a hard place” created by massive, multi-district litigation, the current trajectory of this bill raises serious policy concerns for Kansas consumers and the integrity of the judicial system.
At its core, H.B. 2476 is a strategic attempt to return Kansas to a pre-2005 legal standard. It seeks to insulate chemical manufacturers from the very types of litigation that have recently been successful – specifically regarding products like Roundup (glyphosate) and Paraquat.
The clash of standards – Jenkins[8] vs. Bates.[9] Two competing legal philosophies are involved:
- The Jenkins Model: An older standard set for by the Kansas Supreme Court that essentially says if the EPA approved the label, the manufacturer is protected.
- The Bates Standard:The 2005 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that rejected a “blanket shield.” It ruled that state law claims are only preempted if they impose requirements “in addition to or different from” federal law (FIFRA). If a product is “misbranded,” meaning the label is inadequate even by the EPA’s own standards, Bates allows the lawsuit to move forward.
H.B. 2476 attempts to close the “Bates loophole” by declaring that an EPA-approved label is sufficient as a matter of Kansas law, regardless of whether a plaintiff could prove the product is technically misbranded or that the manufacturer withheld data from the EPA.
The “back-door” immunity problem. While an amendment to the bill narrowed its focus to the “duty to warn or label,” it remains a “preemption-plus” model. By legally declaring a warning “adequate” simply because the EPA signed off on it, the bill indirectly guts design defect claims. Kansas courts utilize the “consumer expectations” test. The key question under this test is whether a product is more dangerous than an ordinary user would expect. As applied to a pesticide product, if a judge rules that the label defines the danger, the jury never gets to decide if the chemical formula itself is inherently too dangerous to exist.
The amended bill ties Kansas law to the EPA’s “most recent human health assessment.” This is a significant shift. It moves the goalposts from a statutory standard to a political/administrative agency’s report. If an EPA assessment says a chemical is safe, H.B. 2476 prevents a Kansas jury from ever hearing evidence to the contrary.
Technically, the bill doesn’t bar design defect cases, but it is “sneaky.” In pesticide cases, the “defect” is often the chemical itself. By covering “any other statutory or common law concerning the duty to warn,” the bill invites judges to dismiss design claims as “disguised” failure-to-warn claims.
Kansas – A Path Forward
The Kansas Senate has an opportunity to remedy H.B. 2476. The goal should be to change the legal weight of the EPA label from conclusive (the end of the discussion) to presumptive (the start of the discussion). In addition, the bill could be amended to align with the U.S. Supreme Court’s Bates decision to protect both agriculture and consumer rights.
A suggested approach would include the following:
- Establish Prima Facie Evidence: The label should be evidence of compliance, not a total shield.
- Protect the Kansas Product Liability Act: Explicitly state that nothing in the bill limits claims for strict liability, design defects, or manufacturing defects.
- Maintain Transparency: Allow claims if a manufacturer fails to disclose known health risks to the EPA.
- Codify Bates: Ensure the legislation is interpreted consistently with Bates v. Dow Agrosciences LLC, keeping state requirements equivalent to federal standards.
- Waite for the U.S. Supreme Court to issue its opinion in Durnell.
These changes would provide manufacturers with a level of certainty while ensuring that Kansans injured by defective products still have their day in court.
Conclusion
The legislative battle unfolding in Kansas is not an isolated incident; it is a microcosm of a national tug-of-war over the future of corporate accountability. As states like North Dakota, Georgia, and Iowa experiment with various “shield” frameworks, the question is whether the traditional rights of the injured will be sacrificed at the altar of regulatory uniformity.
While the agricultural industry undeniably needs protection from predatory or inconsistent litigation, the “conclusive presumption” model currently being pushed in statehouses creates a dangerous precedent. If an administrative agency’s assessment becomes an impenetrable legal shield, the right to a jury of one’s peers is effectively usurped. This shift doesn’t just affect pesticide users, it creates a blueprint for other industries to lobby for immunity based on federal agency sign-offs, potentially eroding product safety standards across the board.
The path forward, whether in Kansas or any other state, must be one of presumption, not immunity. By treating EPA compliance as prima facie evidence rather than a total bar to recovery, legislatures can offer manufacturers a robust defense while still allowing plaintiffs to bring forward evidence of “misbranding,” withheld data, or inherently dangerous chemical designs.
As the U.S. Supreme Court prepares to weigh in on the circuit split, state legislatures have a choice: they can pre-emptively shut the courthouse doors, or they can craft balanced laws that respect the Bates standard. Protecting agriculture and protecting consumers are not mutually exclusive goals; both rely on a transparent, evidence-based legal system where the label is the start of the conversation, not the end of the law.
[1] Anderson v. Monsanto Co., 719 S.W.3d 755 (Mo. Ct. App. 2025).
[2] 707 S.W.3d 828 (Mo. Ct. App. 2025).
[3] No. 21-A-444 (Cobb County, GA Dist. Ct. Mar. 24, 2025).
[4] Caranci v. Monsanto, No. 338 A.3d 151 (Super Ct. Pa. 2025).
[5]Hardeman v. Monsanto, 997 F.3d 941 (9th Cir. 2021); Carson v. Monsanto, 72 F.4th 1261 (11th Cir. 2023); Schaffner v. Monsanto, 113 F. 4th 364 (3rd Cir. 2024).
[6] The case has been “fast tracked” with a decision expected by late June 2026.
[7] H.B. 2476 passed the Kansas House (as amended) on an 81-36 vote on January 29, 2026.
[8] Jenkins v. Anchem Products, Inc., 256 Kan. 602 (1994).
[9] Bates v. Dow Agrosciences, LLC, 544 U.S. 431 (2005).