6 ms·

Monsanto settled a batch of civil cases regarding Roundup for $10bn. No one settle’s for that sum unless they’re guilty. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/24/bus

Monsanto settled a batch of civil cases regarding Roundup for $10bn. No one settle’s for that sum unless they’re guilty. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/24/business/roundup-settlement-lawsuits.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/24/business/roundup-settleme...

steve_adams_86 4y ago
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.
Blackthorn 4y ago
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.
- jwilk 4y ago
  Archived copy: https://archive.today/qfCEV https://archive.today/qfCEV
DoneWithAllThat 4y ago
That’s not how lawsuits work. At all.
- zardo 4y ago
  You do have to have a dim outlook on your prospects of winning to agree to pay out 10 billion.
  - thfuran 4y ago
    What if you're sure that there are going to be quite a lot of plaintiffs and expect to win a mere 99% of the time?
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
  - happyopossum 4y ago
    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.
    - dodgerdan 4y ago
      Funny we execute people based on that standard, but yet it’s somehow lesser here…
      - Thorrez 4y ago
        In the US, criminal trials have a higher bar (beyond a reasonable doubt) than civil trials (preponderance of the evidence). For executions there are additional things as well beyond the regular criminal trial.
      - bitbang 4y ago
        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".
      - aperson_hello 4y ago
        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.
IncRnd 4y ago
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.
- dodgerdan 4y ago
  Show me an example of that where the payment was over $1bn.
  - IncRnd 4y ago
    It took me less than 10 seconds to find. "Companies Finalize $26 Billion Deal With States and Cities to End Opioid Lawsuits" [1] "Judge approves $1 billion settlement for victims of deadly Florida condo collapse" [2] "39 State Attorneys General Announce $1.85 Billion Settlement with Student Loan Servicer Navient" [3] [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/25/health/opioids-settlement-distributors-johnson.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/25/health/opioids-settlement... [2] https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/judge-approves-1-billion-settlement-for-victims-of-deadly-florida-condo-collapse https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/judge-approves-1-billion... [3] https://www.navientagsettlement.com/Home/portalid/0 https://www.navientagsettlement.com/Home/portalid/0
    - dodgerdan 4y ago
      In each case you’ve listed the companies are clearly guilty. You’re proving my point for me.
    - newguynewphone 4y ago
      wait are you suggesting this companies were not guilty? are we reading the same settlements?
      - NullPrefix 4y ago
        Not quoting any of these articles, but "settled with no admission of guilt"
tyrfing 4y ago
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.
- mushbino 4y ago
  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.
  - tyrfing 4y ago
    > 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.
    - mushbino 4y ago
      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. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Donziger https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Donziger
lettergram 4y ago
It’s actually a bit different. It’s more expected value: Cost of settling is X Potential cost of losing is Y Risk of losing is Z If X < Z*Y, then you settle; often a trial continues until Z and Y are sufficiently known, then X is offered to the opposing party. In this case, Y could have bankrupted the company (hundreds of billions in real damages). So, even if risk (Z) was 10-20%, $10B is a deal.
whimsicalism 4y ago
The civil plaintiffs wouldn't have settled for that sum unless they felt they couldn't prove their case in court. Settlement goes both ways, so I don't think your argument is sound.

steve_adams_86 4y ago

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.

Blackthorn 4y ago

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.

jwilk 4y ago
Archived copy: https://archive.today/qfCEV https://archive.today/qfCEV

DoneWithAllThat 4y ago

That’s not how lawsuits work. At all.

zardo 4y ago
You do have to have a dim outlook on your prospects of winning to agree to pay out 10 billion.
- thfuran 4y ago
  What if you're sure that there are going to be quite a lot of plaintiffs and expect to win a mere 99% of the time?
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- happyopossum 4y ago
  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.
  - dodgerdan 4y ago
    Funny we execute people based on that standard, but yet it’s somehow lesser here…
    - Thorrez 4y ago
      In the US, criminal trials have a higher bar (beyond a reasonable doubt) than civil trials (preponderance of the evidence). For executions there are additional things as well beyond the regular criminal trial.
    - bitbang 4y ago
      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".
    - aperson_hello 4y ago
      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.

IncRnd 4y ago

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.

dodgerdan 4y ago
Show me an example of that where the payment was over $1bn.
- IncRnd 4y ago
  It took me less than 10 seconds to find. "Companies Finalize $26 Billion Deal With States and Cities to End Opioid Lawsuits" [1] "Judge approves $1 billion settlement for victims of deadly Florida condo collapse" [2] "39 State Attorneys General Announce $1.85 Billion Settlement with Student Loan Servicer Navient" [3] [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/25/health/opioids-settlement-distributors-johnson.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/25/health/opioids-settlement... [2] https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/judge-approves-1-billion-settlement-for-victims-of-deadly-florida-condo-collapse https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/judge-approves-1-billion... [3] https://www.navientagsettlement.com/Home/portalid/0 https://www.navientagsettlement.com/Home/portalid/0
  - dodgerdan 4y ago
    In each case you’ve listed the companies are clearly guilty. You’re proving my point for me.
  - newguynewphone 4y ago
    wait are you suggesting this companies were not guilty? are we reading the same settlements?
    - NullPrefix 4y ago
      Not quoting any of these articles, but "settled with no admission of guilt"

tyrfing 4y ago

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.

mushbino 4y ago
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.
- tyrfing 4y ago
  > 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.
  - mushbino 4y ago
    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. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Donziger https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Donziger

lettergram 4y ago

It’s actually a bit different. It’s more expected value: Cost of settling is X Potential cost of losing is Y Risk of losing is Z If X < Z*Y, then you settle; often a trial continues until Z and Y are sufficiently known, then X is offered to the opposing party. In this case, Y could have bankrupted the company (hundreds of billions in real damages). So, even if risk (Z) was 10-20%, $10B is a deal.

whimsicalism 4y ago

The civil plaintiffs wouldn't have settled for that sum unless they felt they couldn't prove their case in court. Settlement goes both ways, so I don't think your argument is sound.