Wikipedia

Draft:Johnson & Johnson talc litigation

Johnson & Johnson talc litigation refers to the legal proceedings brought against Johnson & Johnson (J&J) by tens of thousands of plaintiffs who alleged that the company's talc-based baby powder products caused cancer, including ovarian cancer and mesothelioma. The litigation spans multiple decades of jury verdicts, appeals, bankruptcy proceedings, and settlement negotiations.

Background

edit

Johnson & Johnson's talc-based baby powder became the subject of mass litigation after plaintiffs alleged that the product was contaminated with asbestos, a known carcinogen that occurs naturally near talc deposits. As J&J was compelled to produce thousands of pages of internal documents in litigation brought by some of the 11,700 plaintiffs then claiming the company's products caused their cancers, a Reuters examination of those documents, along with deposition and trial testimony, found that from at least 1971 to the early 2000s, the company's raw talc and finished powders sometimes tested positive for small amounts of asbestos, and that company executives, mine managers, scientists, doctors, and lawyers were aware of the problem while failing to disclose it to regulators or the public. The documents also depicted efforts to influence U.S. regulators' plans to limit asbestos in cosmetic talc and to shape scientific research on the health effects of talc.[1]

J&J denied the findings. The company released a statement calling the Reuters article "one-sided, false and inflammatory" and described it as "an absurd conspiracy theory." J&J maintained that its baby powder was safe and asbestos-free, that thousands of independent tests by regulators and leading labs had confirmed this, and that it had cooperated fully and openly with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and other global regulators.[2]

Early verdicts (2016)

edit

In February 2016, a St. Louis Circuit Court jury awarded $72 million in damages to the family of Jacqueline Fox, a Birmingham, Alabama woman who died at age 62. Lawyers for Fox claimed she had used Johnson's Baby Powder and Shower to Shower products for feminine hygiene for more than 35 years before being diagnosed with ovarian cancer. Fox died before the trial began. The award comprised $10 million in actual damages and $62 million in punitive damages. The jury found J&J liable for fraud, negligence, and conspiracy. J&J spokeswoman Carol Goodrich said the company was considering its next legal move, while a company spokesperson said the verdict went against decades of sound science proving the safety of talc.[3][4]

The Missouri Eastern District Court of Appeals later vacated the verdict, ruling that Missouri courts lacked jurisdiction over Fox's claim. Fox was one of 63 out-of-state plaintiffs who had sued J&J under a Missouri rule allowing non-residents to join resident plaintiffs when their claims arise from the same transactions or occurrences. The appeals court reversed this based on the 2017 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court, which held that specific personal jurisdiction requires a connection between the forum state and the specific claims at issue. The ruling also effectively ended three other recent St. Louis jury verdicts totalling more than $200 million combined.[5]

2017 California verdict

edit

On August 21, 2017, a Los Angeles Superior Court jury ordered J&J to pay $417 million to California resident Eva Echeverria, 63, who alleged she developed terminal ovarian cancer after decades of using the company's talc-based products. The verdict, the largest yet in lawsuits alleging J&J failed to adequately warn consumers about the cancer risks of its talc-based products, included $70 million in compensatory damages and $347 million in punitive damages. Echeverria's lawsuit was the first out of hundreds of California talc cases to go to trial. J&J said it would appeal, stating it was guided by science that supported the safety of Johnson's Baby Powder.[6]

2018 St. Louis verdict

edit

On July 12, 2018, a St. Louis Circuit Court jury awarded $4.69 billion to 22 women and their families who alleged that asbestos in J&J's talc products caused their ovarian cancer. The award was the biggest product-defect verdict of 2018 and the sixth-largest in U.S. history, comprising $550 million in compensatory damages and $4.14 billion in punitive damages. It was the first trial in which plaintiffs claimed that asbestos fibers in J&J's talc caused ovarian cancer, and relied on unsealed internal company documents that plaintiffs alleged detailed J&J's knowledge of asbestos contamination since at least the 1970s. J&J called the trial "fundamentally unfair," noting that many of the 22 women were from outside Missouri, and said it would appeal.[7][8]

In December 2018, St. Louis Circuit Court Judge Rex Burlison denied J&J's motion to set aside the verdict. In his ruling, Burlison stated that "substantial evidence was adduced at trial of particularly reprehensible conduct on the part of defendants, including that defendants knew of the presence of asbestos in products that they knowingly targeted for sale to mothers and babies, knew of the damage their products caused, and misrepresented the safety of these products for decades." J&J said the failed motion was merely a formal step required before appeal and expressed confidence the verdict would be overturned.[9]

In 2020, the Missouri Court of Appeals reduced the award to $2.11 billion, while also ruling that J&J had engaged in "reprehensible conduct" in defence of its product, "because of an evil motive or reckless indifference." With interest, the judgment grew to $2.5 billion as of April 2021.[10][11]

Missouri Supreme Court and U.S. Supreme Court

edit

The Supreme Court of Missouri declined to hear J&J's appeal of the reduced $2.11 billion award in November 2020, prompting the company to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.[12]

On June 1, 2021, the Supreme Court of the United States declined to hear J&J's appeal, leaving the Missouri appellate ruling in place. The Court issued an unsigned order with no noted dissents and gave no explanation for its decision. Justices Samuel Alito and Brett Kavanaugh each took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. Alito owned between $15,000 and $50,000 in J&J stock. Kavanaugh's father had headed the trade association that lobbied against labelling talc a carcinogen and including a warning label on talc products.[13][14]

J&J had argued that it was not treated fairly in facing one trial involving 22 cancer sufferers from 12 states and different backgrounds, and that the size of the punitive damages award was unconstitutional. The lead attorney for the plaintiffs during the trial, Mark Lanier, praised the court's refusal to hear the appeal, stating it sent a clear message that those who cause grievous harm would be held to account under a system of equal justice under law.[15]

Discontinuation of talc-based powder

edit

On May 19, 2020, J&J announced it would permanently discontinue sales of talc-based Johnson's Baby Powder in the United States and Canada as part of a portfolio assessment related to COVID-19. The company said demand had been declining due in large part to changes in consumer habits and what it described as "misinformation around the safety of the product and a constant barrage of litigation advertising." Existing retail inventory would continue to be sold through retailers until it ran out. Cornstarch-based Johnson's Baby Powder would remain available in North America. Both types of Johnson's Baby Powder would continue to be sold in other markets around the world where there was significantly higher consumer demand. J&J stated it remained steadfastly confident in the safety of talc-based Johnson's Baby Powder.[16]

In August 2022, J&J announced it would stop selling talc-based baby powder globally by 2023 and replace it with a cornstarch-based formulation. The company said it was continuously evaluating and optimising its portfolio to best position the business for long-term growth, and reiterated that it stood firmly behind the safety of its talc-based product.[17]

Bankruptcy proceedings

edit

LTL Management (2021)

edit

In October 2021, J&J deployed a legal maneuver known as a Texas two-step through which its consumer health subsidiary, Old Consumer, split itself into two new entities: LTL Management LLC, which would hold the talc-related liabilities, and a new consumer company that retained the productive business assets. LTL then filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in North Carolina. The stated goal, as later described by the appeals court reviewing the case, was to isolate the talc liabilities in a new subsidiary so that entity could file for bankruptcy without subjecting the entire operating enterprise to bankruptcy proceedings. LTL also had the right under a Funding Agreement to cause J&J to pay it cash up to the value of the new consumer company, estimated at $61.5 billion, to satisfy talc-related costs.[18]

In January 2023, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit unanimously dismissed the first LTL bankruptcy. Judge Thomas Ambro, writing for the court, found that LTL was not in financial distress and therefore could not show its petition served a valid bankruptcy purpose or was filed in good faith. The court described LTL's funding right against J&J as "a funding backstop, not unlike an ATM disguised as a contract." The ruling prevented J&J from funnelling approximately 40,000 lawsuits into LTL and declaring it bankrupt. LTL filed for bankruptcy a second time immediately after the dismissal, but a bankruptcy court dismissed that attempt in July 2023 on the same grounds.[19][20]

Third bankruptcy attempt and $10 billion settlement rejection (2025)

edit

J&J made a third bankruptcy attempt through a subsidiary called Red River Talc LLC, proposing a $10 billion settlement to resolve more than 60,000 ovarian cancer lawsuits. J&J estimated that each ovarian cancer plaintiff would have received between $75,000 and $150,000 under the plan. The deal would have ended those lawsuits and prevented similar future lawsuits, but would not have affected remaining mesothelioma claims.

On March 31, 2025, United States Bankruptcy Judge Christopher Lopez in Houston rejected the proposal, marking the third time J&J's bankruptcy strategy had failed in court. Lopez wrote that while the decision was not an easy one, it was the right one, and that the company did not belong in bankruptcy. He found that the settlement lacked sufficient support from claimants: J&J had collected 90,000 votes claiming 83 percent support, but Lopez found that at least half should not be counted, as some lawyers had voted on clients' behalf without clear authority to do so, and J&J had unnecessarily rushed the process. He also found that the plan improperly extended legal protections to entities that had not filed for bankruptcy themselves, including retailers and Kenvue, J&J's consumer health spinoff.[21][22]

J&J said it would not appeal. In a press release, the company announced it would return to the tort system to litigate and defeat the remaining claims. Erik Haas, J&J's worldwide vice president of litigation, stated the company had prevailed in 16 of 17 ovarian cancer cases tried in the previous 11 years. J&J also announced it would reverse approximately $7 billion it had previously reserved for the bankruptcy resolution.[23]

Later verdicts (2025)

edit

Mae Moore mesothelioma verdict

edit

On October 6, 2025, a Los Angeles County Superior Court jury ordered J&J to pay $966 million to the family of Mae K. Moore, who died in 2021 at age 88. Moore's family alleged that J&J's talc-based baby powder products contained asbestos fibers that caused her mesothelioma, a rare cancer tied to asbestos exposure. The jury awarded $16 million in compensatory damages and $950 million in punitive damages, the largest verdict for a single user in the 15 years of J&J talc litigation. J&J said it would appeal.[24][25]

According to the verdict form obtained from court records, the jury found that J&J's baby powder and Shower to Shower products contained asbestos, that J&J was negligent, that its negligence was a substantial factor in causing Moore's mesothelioma, and that J&J had intentionally failed to disclose facts and acted with malice, oppression, or fraud. The jury assigned J&J 100 percent responsibility for Moore's mesothelioma. The non-economic damages of $16 million were divided among Moore and her three daughters.[26]

In March 2026, Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Ruth Kwan granted J&J's motion to set aside the $950 million punitive damages award, finding that the family had failed to prove J&J acted with malice or hid information it had a duty to disclose. Kwan let stand the jury's finding on causation but did not address the compensatory damages. J&J said it would appeal the compensatory damages and causation finding, while the Moore family said it would also appeal.[27]

Kent and Schultz ovarian cancer verdict

edit

On December 12, 2025, a Los Angeles Superior Court jury awarded $40 million to two California women with ovarian cancer. The jury awarded $18 million to Monica Kent and $22 million to Deborah Schultz and her husband after finding that J&J knew for years its talc-based products were dangerous but failed to warn consumers. Kent was diagnosed with ovarian cancer in 2014 and Schultz in 2018. Both women said they had used J&J's baby powder after bathing for 40 years, and both had undergone major surgeries and dozens of rounds of chemotherapy.

The case was the first ovarian cancer bellwether trial in California's Judicial Council Coordinated Proceedings against J&J, and the first plaintiffs' verdict in a talc ovarian cancer trial since 2021, when J&J's initial bankruptcy attempt had placed most cases on hold. In closing arguments, plaintiff attorney Andy Birchfield told the jury that J&J had known as far back as the 1960s that its product could cause cancer. J&J attorney Allison Brown argued that the alleged connection was not backed by any major U.S. health authority and that no study showed talc could migrate from outside the body to the reproductive organs. J&J said it would immediately appeal.[28][29]

Scientific context

edit

The scientific debate over talc and ovarian cancer has spanned decades. A 1982 case-control study by Dr. Daniel Cramer and colleagues, published in Cancer, assessed opportunities for genital exposure to talc in 215 women with epithelial ovarian cancers and 215 matched controls. The study found that 42.8 percent of cases regularly used talc as a perineal dusting powder or on sanitary napkins, compared with 28.4 percent of controls. Adjusted for parity and menopausal status, this yielded a relative risk of 1.92 for ovarian cancer associated with those practices.[30]

A 2018 meta-analysis published in the European Journal of Cancer Prevention, drawing on 24 case-control studies and three cohort studies, calculated a summary relative risk of 1.22 for ever use of genital talc and ovarian cancer. The relative risk for case-control studies was 1.26 and for cohort studies was 1.02. Serous carcinoma was the only histological type for which an association was detected. The authors noted a weak trend in risk with duration and frequency of use, but found that the heterogeneity of results between study designs detracted from a causal interpretation.[31]

A 2024 study by Katie M. O'Brien and colleagues at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, examined data from 50,884 women in the Sister Study cohort. The study collected data on genital talc use and douching at enrollment between 2003 and 2009 and at follow-up between 2017 and 2019. In models adjusted for exposure misclassification, genital talc use was positively associated with ovarian cancer, with hazard ratios ranging from 1.17 to 3.34. The study found no significant associations between genital talc use and breast or uterine cancer. O'Brien stated that the findings showed a consistent association between genital talc use and ovarian cancer, particularly among frequent and long-term users and those who used such products during the reproductive years.[32][33]

See also

edit

References

edit
  1. ↑ Girion, Lisa (December 14, 2018). "Johnson & Johnson knew for decades that asbestos lurked in its Baby Powder". Reuters. Retrieved June 19, 2026.
  2. ↑ Peebles, Angelica (December 14, 2018). "J&J shares plunge 10% after report that the company knew for decades about asbestos in baby powder". CNBC. Retrieved June 19, 2026.
  3. ↑ "Johnson & Johnson ordered to pay $72 million in suit linking talcum powder to ovarian cancer". The Washington Post. February 24, 2016. Retrieved June 19, 2026.
  4. ↑ "Johnson & Johnson ordered to pay $72M to family in cancer-talcum powder case". CBC News. February 24, 2016. Retrieved June 19, 2026.
  5. ↑ "MO Appeals Court vacates $72M talc cancer verdict". The National Trial Lawyers. 2017. Retrieved June 19, 2026.
  6. ↑ "Johnson & Johnson ordered to pay $417M in trial over talc cancer risks". Reuters via CBC News. August 22, 2017. Retrieved June 19, 2026.
  7. ↑ "Johnson & Johnson told to pay $4.7 billion in baby powder case". NBC News. Reuters. July 13, 2018. Retrieved June 19, 2026.
  8. ↑ Feeley, Jef; Fisk, Margaret Cronin (July 13, 2018). "$4.7-billion verdict against Johnson & Johnson may open floodgates to lawsuits linking baby powder to cancer". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved June 19, 2026.
  9. ↑ "J&J loses bid to have $4.7 bln talc verdict set aside, vows to appeal". SABC News. Reuters. December 20, 2018. Retrieved June 19, 2026.
  10. ↑ Hurley, Lawrence (June 1, 2021). "U.S. Supreme Court rebuffs J&J appeal over $2 billion baby powder judgment". Reuters. Retrieved June 19, 2026.
  11. ↑ "Johnson & Johnson's last-ditch appeal of $2B talc verdict falls short at Supreme Court". Fierce Pharma. June 1, 2021. Retrieved June 19, 2026.
  12. ↑ Hurley, Lawrence (June 1, 2021). "U.S. Supreme Court rebuffs J&J appeal over $2 billion baby powder judgment". Reuters. Retrieved June 19, 2026.
  13. ↑ "Supreme Court rejects Johnson & Johnson's appeal of $2 billion penalty in baby powder cancer case". CNBC. June 1, 2021. Retrieved June 19, 2026.
  14. ↑ "Supreme Court rejects Johnson & Johnson appeal in $2 billion talc verdict". CBS News. The Associated Press. June 1, 2021. Retrieved June 19, 2026.
  15. ↑ The Associated Press (June 1, 2021). "Supreme Court says a $2 billion verdict in a baby powder cancer case should remain". NPR. Retrieved June 19, 2026.
  16. ↑ "Johnson & Johnson Consumer Health announces discontinuation of talc-based Johnson's Baby Powder in U.S. and Canada" (Press release). Johnson & Johnson. May 19, 2020. Retrieved June 19, 2026.
  17. ↑ "Johnson & Johnson will stop selling talc-based baby powder around the world in 2023". CNN. August 12, 2022. Retrieved June 19, 2026.
  18. ↑ "Third Circuit dismisses J&J affiliate LTL's talc liability Chapter 11 filing". Cadwalader. February 9, 2023. Retrieved June 19, 2026.
  19. ↑ "Court rejects Johnson & Johnson's Texas two-step bankruptcy ploy for talc claims". Fierce Pharma. January 30, 2023. Retrieved June 19, 2026.
  20. ↑ "Third Circuit dismisses J&J affiliate LTL's talc liability Chapter 11 filing". Cadwalader. February 9, 2023. Retrieved June 19, 2026.
  21. ↑ Knauth, Dietrich (April 1, 2025). "US judge rejects J&J's $10 billion baby powder settlement". Reuters. Retrieved June 19, 2026.
  22. ↑ Rodgers, Travis (April 9, 2025). "Judge rejects J&J's $10 billion talc settlement". The Mesothelioma Center at Asbestos.com. Retrieved June 19, 2026.
  23. ↑ "Johnson & Johnson to return to tort system to defeat meritless talc claims" (Press release). Johnson & Johnson. March 31, 2025. Retrieved June 19, 2026.
  24. ↑ Feeley, Jef (October 7, 2025). "J&J must pay record $966 million in talc baby powder cancer case". Bloomberg. Retrieved June 19, 2026.
  25. ↑ "Johnson & Johnson ordered to pay $966 million after jury finds company liable in talc cancer case". CNBC. October 7, 2025. Retrieved June 19, 2026.
  26. ↑ Edel, Amy (October 13, 2025). "What the court documents show about J&J's $966M loss". The Mesothelioma Center at Asbestos.com. Retrieved June 19, 2026.
  27. ↑ Jones, Diana Novak (March 16, 2026). "Judge throws out $950 million punitive damages award against J&J in talc trial". Reuters. Retrieved June 19, 2026.
  28. ↑ Jones, Diana Novak (December 12, 2025). "Jury orders Johnson & Johnson to pay $40 million to two women in latest talc trial". Reuters. Retrieved June 19, 2026.
  29. ↑ "$40 million verdict: Talc trial triumph". Beasley Allen Law Firm. December 16, 2025. Retrieved June 19, 2026.
  30. ↑ Cramer, D.W.; et al. (1982). "Ovarian cancer and talc: a case-control study". Cancer. 50 (2): 372–376. doi:10.1002/1097-0142(19820715)50:2<372::aid-cncr2820500235>3.0.co;2-s. PMID 7083145.
  31. ↑ Berge, W.; et al. (2018). "Genital use of talc and risk of ovarian cancer: a meta-analysis". European Journal of Cancer Prevention. 27 (3): 248–257. doi:10.1097/CEJ.0000000000000340. PMID 28079603.
  32. ↑ O'Brien, Katie M.; et al. (2024). "Intimate care products and incidence of hormone-related cancers: a quantitative bias analysis". Journal of Clinical Oncology. 42 (22): 2645–2659. doi:10.1200/JCO.23.02037. PMC 11484790. PMID 38748950.
  33. ↑ "Genital talc use may be linked to increased risk of ovarian cancer". National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. June 2024. Retrieved June 19, 2026.

Category:Johnson & Johnson Category:Product liability Category:Ovarian cancer Category:Mesothelioma Category:2016 in American law Category:2018 in American law Category:2021 in American law Category:2025 in American law

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Johnson_%26_Johnson_talc_litigation&oldid=1363439384"