This is a crazily high verdict.
Previous discussion here seemed to suggest that the data supporting this was doubtful. Any thoughts?
It is.
But most of the people who use Roundup use it carelessly, and use too much. This is egged on by their own ads which shows a guy spraying down a single plant coming out of the concrete crack with several/many sprays. No, just go over and dig it out- or hell, let it be.
The average homeowner does not need Roundup, but that is how they pushed it.
The plaintiff here wasn’t an “average homeowner”, he was a landscaper who used Roundup constantly. So was the plaintiff in the previous case. I have no opinion on whether or not Roundup may be hazardous in some circumstances but your comment just isn’t relevant here.
The lawyers to Monsanto:
What’s the reasoning for such a high amount, and is it likely to stand up on appeal? “Actual damages”, even for a death, is usually reckoned somewhere in the millions of dollars, not billions, and punitive damages are usually within an order of magnitude of the actual damages.
Bayer buying Monsanto was one of the worst ideas ever. It raised the expression “dumb German money” to stratospheric levels.