Evidently they had internal communications coaching employees on how to communicate about glyphosate, knowing that it’s dangerous and that they can’t claim that it’s safe.
That’s just one damning factor, but there are more. For example, in multiple cases juries agreed that Monsanto has manipulated writing and data from studies of their products. Essentially Ghost writing studies to suit their needs.
While Monsanto was guilty, many companies and people settle for large amounts of money even when not guilty. Settling is often about cost not guilt. A company settles to reduce future risks and to stop unbounded lawsuit costs.
The claim was about companies that are actually not guilty, and while sometimes that's ambiguous it's up to IncRnd to cite an example where it actually is ambiguous or better for the company, with a payment of a billion or more.
Winning or losing a lawsuit of this type is not necessarily proof of guilt, or proof that roundup causes cancer. what it proves is that a jury was convinced that it does.
And we get guilt wrong in criminal trials all the time (see the number of people the Innocence Project has gotten off of death row because the person didn't do it). A jury saying one thing doesn't make it objective truth.
No we don't. In criminal law the burden of proof is "beyond reasonable doubt". The bar is set much lower in civil law with the plaintiff only needing to demonstrate a "preponderance of evidence".
Behind a paywall so I can't see the details, but note that nowadays when you buy Roundup it has a lot more then glyphosate in it, and I trust that "a lot more" far less than if it was just glyphosate.
Not really, 10B just isn't very much. 95,000 cases are being settled for $25-250k a person, where individual cases are 9 digit awards and only require convincing a jury. 100, max 1000, out of those 95,000 people getting awards at jury trials is enough to make that cheaper. It'll be interesting to see what/if 3M settles earplug liability for. Talc powder liability has already cost JNJ over 5 billion, and that's with the Texas two-step.
Also, there's this:
> Part of the $1.25 billion will be used to establish an independent expert panel to resolve two critical questions about glyphosate: Does it cause cancer, and if so, what is the minimum dosage or exposure level that is dangerous?
> If the panel concludes that glyphosate is a carcinogen, Bayer will not be able to argue otherwise in future cases — and if the experts reach the opposite conclusion, the class action’s lawyers will be similarly bound.
I believe they mean it's a lot of money to the company, not the plaintiffs. $10B is a lot of money to any company.
You should see what Chevron has been doing to Steven Donziger for winning the $9.5B case against them for massively polluting the Amazon.
> The tribunal unanimously held that a $9.5 billion pollution judgment by Ecuador’s Supreme Court against Chevron “was procured through fraud, bribery and corruption and was based on claims that had been already settled and released by the Republic of Ecuador years earlier.”
That case?
Bayer settled the class action for 3 orders of magnitude less than some jury awards. They don't have to believe it causes cancer, just that a low percentage of juries can be convinced that making Bayer pay up is a good idea. Straightforward math. They still have 10s of thousands of other court cases to deal with, too.
They put him under house arrest and Chevron appointed their own judge in the case. It was all kinds of messed. That's just how powerful oil companies are. I mean, there's no question they've polluted to a massive degree in the Amazon.
That’s just one damning factor, but there are more. For example, in multiple cases juries agreed that Monsanto has manipulated writing and data from studies of their products. Essentially Ghost writing studies to suit their needs.