A Louisiana resident claims that long-term exposure to a widely used herbicide led to his diagnosis of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, according to a federal court filing seeking damages from the manufacturer. The complaint was filed by Dietrick Willis in the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana on March 12, 2026, naming Monsanto Company as the defendant.
The lawsuit centers on allegations that Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide, which contains glyphosate as its active ingredient, is defective and dangerous to human health. According to the complaint, Willis was exposed to Roundup for more than a decade in Webster Parish, Louisiana before being diagnosed with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma in 2025. The filing states that “Plaintiff maintains that Roundup and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use.”
The document outlines the history of glyphosate’s development by Monsanto in 1970 and its introduction under the brand name Roundup in 1974. It details how glyphosate became one of the most widely used herbicides globally by 2013. The complaint cites studies conducted by international agencies such as the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), which classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans” (Group 2A) in 2015 after reviewing scientific evidence linking occupational exposure to an increased risk of certain cancers including non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.
Willis alleges that despite this classification and other scientific findings regarding genotoxicity and carcinogenicity associated with glyphosate-based products, Monsanto continued marketing Roundup as safe for humans and the environment. The filing references previous legal actions against Monsanto for similar claims about product safety: “In 1996, the New York Attorney General (‘NYAG’) filed a lawsuit against Monsanto based on its false and misleading advertising of Roundup products.” It also notes that courts outside the United States have found some advertising statements about Roundup misleading or inaccurate.
The plaintiff accuses Monsanto of negligence in designing, manufacturing, testing, marketing, labeling, distributing, and selling Roundup without adequate warnings or sufficient safety studies. Specific allegations include failing to test for carcinogenic properties adequately; concealing information about potential risks; underreporting dangers; misrepresenting comparative safety; and failing to update warnings even after acquiring new knowledge about possible harm.
The complaint further claims breach of duty under state law—including provisions of the Louisiana Products Liability Act—by asserting that “Roundup was manufactured, designed, marketed, labeled and sold in a defective condition,” making it unreasonably dangerous when used as intended. Willis argues that he could not have discovered these alleged defects through reasonable care prior to his use of the product.
Additional counts assert inadequate warning under state statutes due to insufficient risk communication on labels or through other channels such as advertisements or medical literature. The plaintiff also alleges breach of express warranty based on representations made by Monsanto regarding product safety and effectiveness: “Monsanto… expressly warranted that Roundup was safe and effective… did not create the risk of or produce dangerous side effects…”
Claims of fraud are included as well. Willis contends that Monsanto intentionally or negligently misrepresented or concealed material information about health risks associated with its products both directly through media campaigns and indirectly via ghostwritten articles presented as independent research.
As relief from the court, Willis seeks compensatory damages for past and future pain and suffering; medical costs; lost wages; interest; attorneys’ fees; punitive damages where allowed by law; costs incurred during litigation; any additional relief deemed appropriate by the court; and requests a jury trial on all issues raised.
According to court records included in Case No. 5:26-cv-00783 filed March 12, 2026 in Shreveport Division of U.S. District Court for Western District of Louisiana—the case is brought through undersigned counsel representing Dietrick Willis against defendant Monsanto Company.
Source: 526cv00783_Dietrick_Willis_v_Monsanto_Company_Complaint_Western_District_of_Louisiana.pdf
