Amicus Brief of Civil Procedure, Aggregate Litigation, Class Action, Legal Ethics, and Consumer Law Scholars in Opposition to Final Approval of Proposed Class Settlement (Roundup)

Authors

• Norman I. Silber, Maurice A. Deane School of Law at Hofstra University
• Myriam E. Gilles, Northwestern Pritzker School of Law
• Jeff Sovern, University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law
• Richard Alderman
• Susan Block-Lieb, Fordham University School of Law
• Mark Elliot Budnitz, Georgia State University College of Law
• Gina M. Calabrese, St. John's University - School of Law
• Kathleen C. Engel, Suffolk University Law School
• Eric M. Freedman, Maurice A. Deane School of Law at Hofstra University
• Ted Mermin, University of California, Berkeley - School of Law
• Margaret Raymond, University of Wisconsin Law School
• David Vladeck, Georgetown University Law Center
• Lauren E. Willis, Loyola Law School Los Angeles
• Brian Wolfman, Georgetown University Law Center
• Ellen Yaroshefsky, Maurice A. Deane School of Law at Hofstra University
• Richard Zitrin, University of California Law San Francisco

Document Type

Article

Publication Date

7-17-2026

Citation / Publisher Attribution

Northwestern Public Law Research Paper No. 26-32

Abstract

Seventeen legal scholars present a brief against the proposed class settlement involving the herbicide ROUNDUP, manufactured principally by Monsanto. The Proposed Settlement, we argue, seeks to extinguish the claims of hundreds of thousands of present and future Roundup claimants through a process that received virtually no meaningful adversarial scrutiny and that systematically impairs the ability of class members to make an informed and independent choice about whether to participate.

I. The Settlement Does Not Provide a Meaningful Opt-Out Right 9

II. The Settlement Creates Structural Conflicts Between Lawyers and the Clients They Purport to Represent 11

III. The Settlement Notice Materially Distorts Claimants’ Assessment of Their Alternatives 15

IV. The Settlement Fails to Protect Future Claimants and Persons with Latent Injuries 18

V. The Settlement Pays Fees to Class Counsel Inequitably. 21

VI. The Settlement Is Unlikely to Deliver the Finality It Promises and Instead Risks Generating Extensive Future Litigation Over Its Enforceability. 23

CONCLUSION 25

APPENDIX 27

Recommended Citation

Silber, Norman I.; Gilles, Myriam E.; Sovern, Jeff; Alderman, Richard; Block-Lieb, Susan; Budnitz, Mark Elliot; Calabrese, Gina M.; Engel, Kathleen C.; Freedman, Eric M.; Mermin, Ted; Raymond, Margaret; Vladeck, David; Willis, Lauren E.; Wolfman, Brian; Yaroshefsky, Ellen; and Zitrin, Richard, "Amicus Brief of Civil Procedure, Aggregate Litigation, Class Action, Legal Ethics, and Consumer Law Scholars in Opposition to Final Approval of Proposed Class Settlement (Roundup)" (2026). Law Faculty Research and Publications. 19.
https://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/law_faculty_pub/19