Federal pre-emption arguments may clarify the prospect of further glyphosate actions against Bayer in the United States. Actions alleging a link between glyphosate and cancers have so far failed outside the United States due to a lack of expert evidence verifying a causative link. In the United States, state-based 'failure to warn' claims and the acceptance of conflicting expert evidence has resulted in substantial damages (both general and punitive) being awarded. However, the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has consistently approved glyphosate products without a cancer-related warning. Bayer argues that states cannot impose labelling requirements in excess of federal requirements. Some states agree, with North Dakota recently legislating that warning labels meeting EPA standards will be deemed sufficient. This measure effectively shields Bayer from glyphosate cancer litigation in the state. However, with conflicting circuit judicial guidance arising on this issue, Bayer has petitioned the Supreme Court, which has in turn sought the views of the Solicitor General. Further developments are expected in 2026.