When junk science wins in court, consumers and innovation pay the price

OPINION:

When court verdicts are affected by unreliable science, the consequences devastate entire industries, raise prices for consumers, crush innovation and undermine public trust in the American legal system.

Earlier this year, Bayer agreed to pay $7.25 billion to settle thousands of lawsuits surrounding its Roundup weedkiller. The company has already paid about $11 billion to resolve nearly 100,000 cases, though roughly 61,000 remain pending.

Bayer has stopped producing glyphosate-based Roundup for home use and is seeking approval for a replacement herbicide, while continuing to fight legal battles.

The Roundup saga has become a case study in how mass tort campaigns based on junk science pressure companies into massive settlements, effectively operating as de facto regulations handed down from the bench. That concern is at the heart of the Junk Science Playbook released by the American Tort Reform Association (ATRA).

In the report, ATRA outlines how plaintiffs’ attorneys rely on highly flawed evidence to sway juries and secure outsized verdicts — and massive fees for themselves.

ATRA contends that excessive litigation not only punishes defendants, but can also chill innovation across industries, diverting resources away from developing and improving products. This exact dynamic has been at play with Roundup — even though an exhaustive independent evaluation by government regulators found “no risks of concern to human health from current uses of glyphosate.”

Compare this careful, evidence-based approach with junk science, or unverified, unreliable or exaggerated scientific claims passed off as truth by “experts.” Their data is often not peer-reviewed, but is instead based on anecdotal evidence that distorts scientific principles to support the argument of the attorneys who hired them.

Junk science has influenced juries and judges, resulting in unjust verdicts and massive, unfair payouts.

Advertisement Advertisement

The danger here isn’t abstract. Companies are at grave risk of being held liable for purported harms with no scientific backing. Entire industries, from pharmaceuticals to agriculture to energy, are less willing to invest in new and innovative products because of the fear of lawsuits fueled by speculative expert testimony.

That dynamic is evident in Barry v. DePuy Synthes, where the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a Pennsylvania trial court’s decision to exclude two expert witnesses. This seemingly arcane move further complicated the distinction between a judge’s gatekeeping function and the jury’s role in weighing evidence and credibility.

Relying on expert testimony from doctors Walid Yassir and David Neal, orthopedic surgeon Mark Barry alleged that DePuy Synthes’ spinal surgery tools infringed three patents on spinal deformity corrections. Although the district court excluded both testimonies in the original trial, the Federal Circuit Appeals Court reversed and permitted the testimony.

Dr. Yassir made sweeping interpretations that stretched claims beyond their reasonable scope, while Dr. Neal’s survey methodology contained significant flaws. The result illustrates how lenient admissibility standards can allow speculative science to influence high-stakes cases.

When speculative science rules the day, the inevitable outcome is higher costs for consumers. According to a 2024 analysis by the Brattle Group, “tort costs continue to grow faster than inflation, at an average annual rate of 7.1 percent between 2016 and 2022. If tort cost growth continues at that pace, U.S. tort costs will near $1 trillion by 2030.” These costs are undoubtably fueled by shoddy science and resultingly shaky verdicts.

Advertisement Advertisement

Recognizing this troubling pattern, ATRA created the Junk Science Playbook to provide practical guidance for courts, attorneys and policymakers to keep junk science out of the courts. The playbook shows how junk science infiltrates the legal process, and it outlines the tactics used by plaintiffs to introduce questionable evidence — along with strategies to fight back.

It also urges policymakers at all levels of government to mandate that lawyers and judges rigidly uphold scientific standards, ensuring the information delivered to jurors is based on sound and factual evidence.

The American civil justice system plays a vital role in compensating individuals who have suffered real harm, while discouraging future bad behavior. But the system cannot properly fulfill its duty without reliable gatekeeping.

Judges are empowered to lead their courtrooms utilizing Federal Rule of Evidence 702 — to act as gatekeepers and exclude testimony that does not meet established scientific standards.

Advertisement Advertisement

Sustaining those standards in court is not about shielding corporations or favoring one party in a suit over another; it’s about preserving justice and equality for all. Juries, defendants and plaintiffs involved in tort litigation deserve evidence that reflects the best available knowledge, not speculation that falsely bolsters an attorney’s contentions.

Outcomes that hinge on sound science result in irresponsible actors being punished, innocent ones being protected and justice being served.

The “Junk Science Playbook” is a warning and call to action: When the legal system allows unreliable science to dictate verdicts, everyone pays.

• David Williams is the president of Taxpayers Protection Alliance.

Advertisement Advertisement