* In May 2019, a jury in California ordered Bayer to pay a litigant $2 billion in damages after finding that the company had failed to adequately inform consumers of the possible carcinogenicity of Roundup. On July 26, 2019, a judge cut the settlement to $86.7 million, stating that the judgment by the jury exceeded legal precedent. [7]

* In October 2019, Bayer reported that the number of U.S. plaintiffs suing over glyphosate-linked cancers had reached a staggering 42,700. [8] Paid messages on national media now advertise the availability of funds to cover glyphosate damages and urge Roundup-exposed victims with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma to apply for compensation. 

Wi-Radiation Everywhere:

   Continuing is a US lawsuit consolidating some 29 brain cancer litigation cases naming 46 defendants including Motorola, Verizon, AT&T, Nokia etc. This suit seeks compensation for older cancer cases arising from the use of cell phones sold before 1996.  Four legal consortiums are still working their way forward on this class action suit after a 2016 appeals court decision held that a different legal standard for evidence must be applied in future hearings. [13] This appeals ruling reversed an earlier 2014 court ruling that experts for the plaintiffs had met Dyas/Frye legal standards and could offer valid testimony related to injury causation and health effects from cell phone radiation. The 2016 appeals ruling fairly stinks of obstruction on behalf of the Wi-industry.

   In 2009, the brain cancer lawsuit Murray vs. Motorola provoked a court ruling confirming that claims of health damage from cell phones are barred on the basis of both express and implied federal preemption under the Telecom Act of 1996. The court stated, "We conclude that federal law DOES IMPLIEDLY PREEMPT plaintiffs’ claims insofar as they seek to hold defendants liable for bodily injuries from cell phones that meet the radiofrequency (RF) radiation standard adopted by the Federal Communications Commission (the FCC)." [14]

BUT THE COURT ALSO SAID: "At the same time, we conclude that insofar as the plaintiffs’ claims are premised on allegations that they were injured through the use of cell phones that did not meet the FCC standard, the claims are not federally preempted." [14]

AND THE COURT ALSO SAID: "We conclude that the Plaintiffs' CPPA claims are not preempted by federal law." This  is important because CPPA claims derive from the Consumer Protection Procedures Act which regulates unfair and deceptive trade practices.  In the 2009 Murray case, the plaintiffs injured by cell phone radiation had cited numerous deceptive trade practices used by the telecom industry including: crucial health information withheld, false representation that their dangerous devices had approval and certification which they did not have and the false representation that research has shown that there is no risk of harm with the use of cell phones. [14]

   The 2019 suit states: "These [test] results are not an aberration, but instead reflect actual emissions conducted by an FCC-accredited lab under the same conditions used by manufacturers themselves." This testing corroborates earlier studies by French scientists and also researchers at the University of Utah who reported that smart devices sold to consumers routinely excrete microwave radiation in excess of both European and US safety standards when held near (within 2 mm) or directly on the body. [16]

  The 2019 suit cites scientific evidence of severe health damage from constant and excessive exposure to non-compliant microwave emitters: "As a result, on information and belief, Plaintiffs have been exposed to harmful levels of RF radiation that could negatively affect their health for many years to come."