The justices took up Bayer’s appeal of a lower court’s ruling in a case brought by a man who said he was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma after years of exposure to Roundup. The Missouri Court of Appeals upheld a $1.25 million verdict that a St. Louis jury awarded the plaintiff, John Durnell, over his cancer diagnosis.

Bayer shares jumped almost 5% on the news that the court would hear the case. The court has yet to announce when it will hear arguments in the dispute.

The justices took up Bayer’s appeal of a lower court’s ruling in a case brought by a man who said he was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma after years of exposure to Roundup. AP

In a statement, Bayer CEO Bill Anderson said the court’s decision was “an important step in our multi-pronged strategy to significantly contain this litigation.”

“It is time for the US legal system to establish that companies should not be punished under state laws for complying with federal warning label requirements,” Anderson said.

An attorney for the plaintiff did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The Missouri Court of Appeals rejected the German pharmaceutical and biotechnology company’s contention that federal law governing pesticides bars lawsuits making claims over pesticides under state laws.

Bayer is facing similar claims from approximately 65,000 plaintiffs in state and federal courts. Roundup is among the most widely used weedkillers in the United States.

Bayer shares jumped almost 5% on the news that the court would hear the case. Bayer is facing similar claims from approximately 65,000 plaintiffs in state and federal courts. REUTERS

President  Trump’s administration in December urged the Supreme Court to take up Bayer’s appeal. In a brief filed at the court, US Solicitor General D. John Sauer offered the administration’s view that Bayer is correct in its reading of the law at issue.

Bayer is arguing that consumers should not be able to sue it under state law for failing to warn that Roundup increases cancer risk because the Environmental Protection Agency has found no such risk and requires no such warning. Bayer argued that federal law does not allow it to add any warning to the product beyond the EPA-approved label.

President  rump’s administration in December urged the Supreme Court to take up Bayer’s appeal. AP

The company has made the Supreme Court a key part of its strategy to manage the claims, as a ruling that federal law preempts claims brought under state law would shut down the vast majority of the lawsuits.

Lawyers for Durnell had asked the Supreme Court to turn away Bayer’s appeal. They said Durnell relied on Bayer’s advertising and not just the label when he chose to use Roundup, and the company’s marketing failed to warn consumers of the product’s risks.

Start your day with all you need to know

Morning Report delivers the latest news, videos, photos and more.

Thanks for signing up!

The company has paid about $10 billion to settle most of the Roundup lawsuits that were pending as of 2020, but failed to get a settlement covering future cases. New lawsuits have continued to pour in since then. Plaintiffs have said they developed non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and other forms of cancer due to using Roundup, either at home or on the job.

Bayer, which acquired Roundup as part of its $63 billion purchase of agrochemical company Monsanto in 2018, has said that decades of studies have shown Roundup and its active ingredient, glyphosate, are safe for human use.

Bayer, which acquired Roundup as part of its $63 billion purchase of agrochemical company Monsanto in 2018, has said that decades of studies have shown Roundup and its active ingredient, glyphosate, are safe for human use. AFP/Getty Images

“EPA has repeatedly determined that glyphosate is not likely to be carcinogenic in humans, and the agency has repeatedly approved Roundup labels that did not contain cancer warnings,” Sauer said in the administration’s brief to the Supreme Court.

The company has had a mixed record at trial in the Roundup lawsuits. Bayer has prevailed in a series of Roundup trials, but it was also hit with large jury awards in the past few years, including a $2.1 billion verdict in a case in the state of Georgia in 2025.

Bayer has asked the Supreme Court to consider the Roundup litigation before, but was rebuffed in 2022. Since then, one federal appeals court agreed with the company in a split from other appeals courts.

Bayer has threatened to withdraw Roundup from the US market as it fights the litigation. The company replaced glyphosate in US consumer products with different weed-killing substances.

The post Supreme Court to hear Bayer’s appeal to block thousands of Roundup weedkiller lawsuits appeared first on Our Story Insight.

Jurors in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Md., on Monday found the company, two of its subsidiaries and spinoff Kenvue liable for failing to warn plaintiff Cherie Craft that its baby powder contained asbestos.

Johnson & Johnson said it will appeal the jury’s decision, which the plaintiff’s law firm said was the largest-ever sum awarded against J&J for a single plaintiff.

Johnson & Johnson and its subsidiaries will pay over $1.5 billion to a woman who claimed the talc-based products caused her cancer. REUTERS

The award to Craft, who was diagnosed with mesothelioma in January 2024, includes $59.84 million in compensatory damages and punitive damages of $1 billion against J&J and $500 million against Pecos River Talc — a J&J subsidiary, according to court documents.

The case follows a California jury decision earlier in December that awarded $40 million to two women who said the company’s baby powder was to blame for their ovarian cancer.

Peritoneal mesothelioma is a rare cancer that develops in the lining of the abdomen and abdominal organs. It is most often linked to asbestos exposure.

While there is no cure, treatments such as surgery, chemotherapy, and palliative care can help manage symptoms and improve quality of life.

“Cherie Craft runs a non-profit where she pours her life into helping others. Her cancer was preventable. She used Johnson’s Baby Powder every day of her life until she was diagnosed with cancer,” said Jessica Dean, a partner at Dean Omar Branham Shirley, which represented Craft. “J&J refused to accept any responsibility and fought at every turn.”

Johnson & Johnson called the ruling “egregious” and “patently unconstitutional.” “We will immediately appeal this verdict,” Erik Haas, J&J’s worldwide vice president of litigation, said in a statement, arguing the decision resulted from “gross errors” by the trial court and was “squarely at odds” with most talc cases in which the company has prevailed.

Johnson & Johnson called the ruling “egregious” and “patently unconstitutional.” AFP via Getty Images

Haas reiterated J&J’s position that its talc products are safe and do not contain asbestos, citing decades of studies. “These lawsuits are predicated on junk science,” he said.

The company faces lawsuits from more than 67,000 plaintiffs who say they were diagnosed with cancer after using its baby powder and other talc products, a claim J&J has consistently denied.

It has previously sought to resolve the litigation through a proposed bankruptcy settlement that would allocate billions of dollars to claimants, but those efforts have been rejected by courts.

J&J stopped selling talc-based baby powder in the United States in 2020 and globally in 2023, switching to cornstarch-based alternatives.

The Maryland verdict adds to a series of large awards against J&J in talc cases, though many have been reduced or overturned on appeal.

The company has set aside billions for litigation costs and settlements as it continues to fight claims in courts across the country.

The post J&J ordered to pay $1.5B in talc cancer lawsuit, vows to appeal appeared first on Our Story Insight.

The ruling overturns a decision that had prompted a furious backlash from Musk and damaged Delaware’s business-friendly reputation.

The court said a 2024 ruling that rescinded the pay package had been improper and inequitable to Musk.

Elon Musk’s 2018 pay package from Tesla, once worth $56 billion, was restored by the Delaware Supreme Court. Above, Musk with President Trump last year. REUTERS

The remedy of total rescission “leaves Musk uncompensated for his time and efforts over a period of six years,” the 49-page ruling issued on Friday stated.

The 2018 pay package is now worth about $139 billion based on the price of Tesla’s stock at the close of trading on Friday.

Tesla shares were up less than 1% in after-hours trading following the ruling.

Tesla did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Musk posted on X that he was “vindicated.”

The pay package was by far the largest ever until Tesla shareholders approved a new, even larger pay plan in November.

The ruling means that Musk can finally get paid for his work since 2018, when he transformed Tesla from a struggling startup to one of the world’s most valuable companies. If Tesla’s appeal had failed, it could have triggered a $26 billion hit to profit over two years to account for the replacement stock-compensation package it had promised Musk – at today’s much higher stock price.

The pay package was by far the largest ever until Tesla shareholders approved a new, even larger pay plan in November. CFOTO/Future Publishing via Getty Images

The 2018 pay deal provided Musk options to acquire about 304 million Tesla shares at a deeply discounted price if the company hit various milestones, which it did. The options represent around 9% of Tesla’s outstanding stock.

Musk never collected his stock options because soon after shareholders approved the 2018 compensation, the board was sued by Richard Tornetta, an investor with just nine Tesla shares.

In 2024, after a five-day trial, Delaware Judge Kathaleen McCormick concluded that Tesla’s directors were conflicted and key facts were hidden from shareholders when they voted to approve the plan. She ordered that the 2018 plan be rescinded.

Charlie Gasparino has his finger on the pulse of where business, politics and finance meet

Sign up to receive On The Money by Charlie Gasparino in your inbox every Thursday.

Thanks for signing up!

Musk accused Delaware judges of being activists who are hostile to tech founders and he urged businesses to follow Tesla and reincorporate elsewhere. Dropbox, Roblox, Trade Desk and Coinbase  were among the handful of large companies that moved their legal homes to Nevada or Texas. However, Delaware remains by far the most popular legal home for US public companies.

Tesla’s board had warned that Musk, the world’s richest person who also leads the SpaceX rocket venture and artificial intelligence startup xAI, could leave the electric car company if he did not get the pay he wanted and an increase in his voting power.

In November, shareholders approved a new pay package that could be worth $878 billion if Tesla meets targets for self-driving vehicles, a robotaxi network and sales of humanoid robots.

Tesla has taken steps to reduce the risk that a shareholder could tie up the 2025 package in the courts.

The Austin-based company is now incorporated in Texas, which allows Tesla to require that any investor or group of investors must own 3% of the company stock before suing for an alleged corporate law violation. A stake of that size would be worth around $30 billion and Musk is the only individual with that much stock.

The post Elon Musk wins appeal to restore $56B Tesla pay deal that was called ‘unfathomable’ appeared first on Our Story Insight.

Jerome Dewald sat with his legs crossed and his hands folded in his lap in front of an appellate panel of New York State judges, ready to argue for a reversal of a lower court’s decision in his dispute with a former employer.

The court had allowed Mr. Dewald, who is not a lawyer and was representing himself, to accompany his argument with a prerecorded video presentation.

As the video began to play, it showed a man seemingly younger than Mr. Dewald’s 74 years wearing a blue, collared shirt and a beige sweater and standing in front of what appeared to be a blurred virtual background.

A few seconds into the video, one of the judges, confused by the image on the screen, asked Mr. Dewald if the man was his lawyer.

“I generated that,” Mr. Dewald responded. “That is not a real person.”

The judge, Justice Sallie Manzanet-Daniels of the Appellate Division’s First Judicial Department, paused for a moment. It was clear she was displeased with his answer.

“It would have been nice to know that when you made your application,” she snapped at him.

“I don’t appreciate being misled,” she added before yelling for someone to turn off the video.

What Mr. Dewald failed to disclose was that he had created the digital avatar using artificial intelligence software, the latest example of A.I. creeping into the U.S. legal system in potentially troubling ways.

The hearing at which Mr. Dewald made his presentation, on March 26, was filmed by court system cameras and reported earlier by The Associated Press.

Reached on Friday, Mr. Dewald, the plaintiff in the case, said he had been overwhelmed by embarrassment at the hearing. He said he had sent the judges a letter of apology shortly afterward, expressing his deep regret and acknowledging that his actions had “inadvertently misled” the court.

He said he had resorted to using the software after stumbling over his words in previous legal proceedings. Using A.I. for the presentation, he thought, might ease the pressure he felt in the courtroom.

He said he had planned to make a digital version of himself but had encountered “technical difficulties” in doing so, which prompted him to create a fake person for the recording instead.

“My intent was never to deceive but rather to present my arguments in the most efficient manner possible,” he said in his letter to the judges. “However, I recognize that proper disclosure and transparency must always take precedence.”

A self-described entrepreneur, Mr. Dewald was appealing an earlier ruling in a contract dispute with a former employer. He eventually presented an oral argument at the appellate hearing, stammering and taking frequent pauses to regroup and read prepared remarks from his cellphone.

As embarrassed as he might be, Mr. Dewald could take some comfort in the fact that actual lawyers have gotten into trouble for using A.I. in court.

In 2023, a New York lawyer faced severe repercussions after he used ChatGPT to create a legal brief riddled with fake judicial opinions and legal citations. The case showcased the flaws in relying on artificial intelligence and reverberated throughout the legal trade.

The same year, Michael Cohen, a former lawyer and fixer for President Trump, provided his lawyer with phony legal citations he had gotten from Google Bard, an artificial intelligence program. Mr. Cohen ultimately pleaded for mercy from the federal judge presiding over his case, emphasizing that he had not known the generative text service could provide false information.

Some experts say that artificial intelligence and large language models can be helpful to people who have legal matters to deal with but cannot afford lawyers. Still, the technology’s risks remain.

“They can still hallucinate — produce very compelling looking information” that is actually “either fake or nonsensical,” said Daniel Shin, the assistant director of research at the Center for Legal and Court Technology at the William & Mary Law School. “That risk has to be addressed.”

The post Man Employs A.I. Avatar in Legal Appeal, and Judge Isn’t Amused appeared first on Our Story Insight.