Dicamba Lawsuit: Bader Farms Verdict, Settlements & Claims

A dicamba lawsuit is a legal claim tied to the herbicide dicamba, most often brought by a farmer whose crops, orchards, or vines were damaged when the chemical drifted from a neighbor’s field. The litigation has grown into a sprawling body of cases: farmers suing Bayer (which acquired Monsanto in 2018) and BASF over a crop system they say was designed to fail, environmental groups repeatedly suing the EPA over its approvals of dicamba for use on genetically engineered crops, and Bayer suing individual farmers it accuses of misusing the product. Some of this has resolved through verdicts and a $400 million settlement; other cases and a fresh regulatory challenge remain active in 2026.

Why Farmers Are Suing

The core allegation is that Monsanto sold a product system it knew would injure neighboring farms. In 2015 and 2016, Monsanto began selling genetically engineered cotton and soybean seeds branded “Xtend” that were designed to tolerate dicamba sprayed directly on the growing crop. The EPA had not yet approved a corresponding low-volatility dicamba formulation for that use. Monsanto sold the seeds anyway.¹

Farmers who bought the new seeds turned to older, highly volatile dicamba formulations that were known to drift and vaporize onto neighboring fields, damaging crops that weren’t engineered to survive them. Internal Monsanto documents presented at trial showed the company anticipated the problem; a 2015 internal communication joked that “one sticker is going to keep us out of jail,” a reference to warning labels on seed bags.²

When the newer, supposedly low-volatility products (Monsanto’s XtendiMax, BASF’s Engenia, and Syngenta’s Tavium) reached the market in 2017, they didn’t solve it. Internal Monsanto testing had shown the new formulations still moved off target, and the company halted its own volatility testing in 2015 in what court records described as an effort to keep a “clean slate” for regulatory approval.²

The Scale of the Damage

By late 2017, roughly 3.6 million acres of soybeans were under investigation for dicamba-related injury across 25 states, with Arkansas, Illinois, Tennessee, Missouri, and Minnesota hit hardest.³ USDA estimates put the figure at up to 15 million acres of soybeans damaged by dicamba drift in 2018 alone, a level of herbicide damage described as unprecedented in U.S. agriculture.⁴

The harm went well beyond soybeans. Tomatoes, watermelon, cantaloupe, pumpkins, tobacco, vineyards, residential gardens, trees, and native plants all suffered damage.⁵ That range is why the litigation now spans row-crop farmers, orchardists, vineyard owners, and beekeepers.

The Bader Farms Verdict

The first dicamba damage case to reach trial belonged to Bill Bader, a Missouri peach farmer who said dicamba drift from the Xtend system devastated his orchards. In February 2020, a federal jury in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri awarded Bader Farms $265 million: $15 million in compensatory damages and $250 million in punitive damages against both Bayer and BASF.⁶

The trial exposed damaging internal evidence. Documents showed Monsanto had a policy of never settling drift complaints and of blaming applicators for damage. In 2017, the company instructed its inspectors to refuse visits to farmers who had been harmed by drift if they weren’t current customers “in good standing” or owed the company money. A 2015 inquiry form was designed to “gather data that could defend Monsanto” and told inspectors to look for symptoms of damage from anything other than dicamba.⁷

The district court later cut the punitive damages from $250 million to $60 million. On appeal in July 2022, the Eighth Circuit affirmed that Bayer and BASF had engaged in a civil conspiracy to increase dicamba sales through unlawful means, keeping both companies jointly liable for the $15 million in actual damages. The court reversed the joint venture finding against BASF and sent the case back for a new trial on punitive damages.⁸

That retrial never happened. Bader Farms settled its remaining claims with Monsanto. Because the district court had separately ruled that the evidence did not support punitive damages against BASF, and that ruling was not appealed, BASF was released from punitive liability. A final judgment dismissing the case with prejudice was entered on January 12, 2023.⁹

The $400 Million Soybean Settlement

Bader Farms was one case among many. In February 2018, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated federal dicamba cases into an MDL in the Eastern District of Missouri, overseen by Judge Stephen Limbaugh Jr. By early 2020, at least 130 lawsuits had been consolidated there, and thousands of farmers had filed complaints with state agencies about drift.⁶

In June 2020, Bayer announced it would pay up to $400 million to settle dicamba drift claims. Of that total, $300 million was earmarked for the “Dicamba Herbicides Litigation Soybean Producers Master Settlement Agreement,” covering commercial soybean crop damage from third-party dicamba application on resistant crops between 2015 and 2020. The remaining funds covered specialty crop farmers, legal fees, and settlement administration. Bayer said it expected BASF to contribute, though no BASF-specific amount has been publicly reported.¹⁰

When the claim period for soybean growers opened in late December 2020, eligible farmers had to show yield loss during the 2015–2020 window and drop any existing individual claims to participate.¹¹ According to a March 2025 joint status report, all claims under the settlement had been reviewed and processed, and payments issued to approved claimants. A separate case, Flamm Orchard, also reached a settlement with terms being finalized.¹² As of May 2026, the Eastern District of Missouri MDL has closed. Plaintiffs who exited earlier to pursue independent litigation remain at various stages.¹³

Cases Still Open

California Vineyards

In 2022, owners of more than 50 California vineyards filed separate lawsuits against dicamba manufacturers, seeking over $500 million for damage to approximately 12,000 square miles of vineyards. These claims are distinct from the soybean MDL, and no settlement for non-soybean crop damage had been publicly announced as of 2026.¹³

Bayer’s Suits Against Farmers

Bayer has also gone on offense. In January 2023, the company filed federal lawsuits in the Eastern District of Missouri against six farmers from Pemiscot County, Missouri, alleging patent infringement, breach of contract, and negligence for saving and replanting Bayer’s genetically engineered seeds without authorization. Four of the six were also accused of spraying older, volatile dicamba formulations past state-mandated cutoff dates.¹⁴

George Kimbrell of the Center for Food Safety called the lawsuits an attempt to “relitigate” responsibility for widespread damage. The farmers, represented by attorney Wendell Hoskins, denied all claims. Bayer said the suits were necessary to “protect grower access to the technologies” and address clear evidence of illegal use.¹⁴

The EPA Court Fights

Running alongside the farmer cases is a separate line of litigation aimed at the EPA for approving dicamba on genetically engineered crops. Federal courts have struck down the agency’s registrations twice, and a third challenge is underway.

In June 2020, the Ninth Circuit revoked the EPA’s registration of dicamba for over-the-top use, finding the agency’s risk analysis “shoddy” and holding that it had understated or ignored evidence of substantial damage.¹⁵¹⁶¹⁷

On February 6, 2026, the EPA re-registered three dicamba products (Bayer’s Stryax, BASF’s Engenia, and Syngenta’s Tavium) for use on resistant soybeans and cotton during the 2026 and 2027 seasons. The new label eliminated the previous June cutoff for application, removed a 100-foot buffer zone for endangered species habitats, and replaced calendar-based restrictions with temperature-based ones, prohibiting application above 95°F while requiring “volatility reducing agents” on hotter days.¹⁸¹⁹

Two weeks later, on February 20, 2026, a coalition filed a petition for review in the Ninth Circuit. Plaintiffs in National Family Farm Coalition v. EPA include the National Family Farm Coalition, Center for Biological Diversity, Pesticide Action & Agroecology Network, and Center for Food Safety. They argue the registration violates both FIFRA and the Endangered Species Act and that the agency ignored a decade of evidence about dicamba’s tendency to vaporize and drift. The plaintiffs’ opening brief was due in May 2026 and the EPA’s response in June 2026.²⁰¹⁹

The EPA has also proposed a separate, unconditional registration for the three dicamba products, which would remain in effect for at least 15 years unless a court overturns it. A public comment period closed in August 2025. If finalized, it would be the first unconditional over-the-top dicamba registration to face judicial review.²¹

Can You Still File a Claim?

The Bayer $400 million soybean settlement window has closed. Farmers who accepted that settlement waived their right to bring further claims against Bayer for damage during the 2015–2020 seasons. Farmers who opted out remain free to pursue independent litigation.¹¹

Outside that closed program, farmers or landowners with dicamba drift damage to crops, fruit, or trees can still pursue legal claims against the applicator, the herbicide manufacturer, or both. Claims against applicators generally rely on negligence: failing to follow label directions, spraying in improper weather, or ignoring buffer requirements. Claims against manufacturers focus on product liability, alleging the herbicides were defectively designed, inadequately labeled, or marketed in a way that made drift foreseeable.²²

Documentation matters. File an incident report with your state department of agriculture promptly. Deadlines vary by state; in Iowa, for example, reports must be filed within 60 days of the damage and before 25% of the crop is harvested. Crop insurance does not cover losses from pesticide drift, which makes legal action or private settlement the primary route to compensation. Because facts and state law vary, affected farmers are generally advised to consult legal counsel to evaluate their specific situation.²²

1
National Agricultural Law Center. Plaintiff Dicamba Lawsuit Adds BASF Civil Conspiracy Allegations
2
Investigate Midwest. Inside Monsanto and BASFs Moves to Force Dicamba on Farmers
3
ConsumerNotice.org. Dicamba Herbicide
4
Center for Biological Diversity. Trump EPA Sued for Reapproving Dicamba
5
U.S. Right to Know. Dicamba
6
Investigate Midwest. For Dicamba Lawsuits Bader Verdict Is Just the Beginning
7
The Counter. Bader Peach Farmer Lawsuit Bayer Dicamba Monsanto
8
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Bader Farms Inc v Monsanto Co
9
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. Bader Farms Inc v Monsanto Co, Case No 1:16-cv-00299-SNLJ
10
Investigate Midwest. Bayer Reaches 400 Million Deal With Farmers
11
National Agricultural Law Center. The Deal With Dicamba Updates From the First Quarter of 2021
12
Penn State Center for Agricultural and Shale Law. Dicamba Issue Tracker
13
ConsumerNotice.org. Dicamba Lawsuits
14
Investigate Midwest. Bayer Sues Four Missouri Farmers for Illegally Spraying Dicamba
15
Investigate Midwest. A New Dicamba Lawsuit Is Likely Around the Corner
16
National Agricultural Law Center. The Deal With Dicamba Court Vacates Over the Top Registration
17
University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture. Arizona Court Dicamba Ruling
18
Chemical & Engineering News. EPA Dicamba Herbicide Registration
19
National Agricultural Law Center. The Deal With Dicamba Products Registered Lawsuit Filed
20
Courthouse News Service. Farmers Challenge EPAs New Regulations for Controversial Herbicide
21
National Agricultural Law Center. The Deal With Dicamba EPA Proposes Unconditional Registration for Over the Top Use
22
Iowa State University Center for Agricultural Law and Taxation. Dicamba Drift What Are the Legal Remedies