Johnson & Johnson Hit With $40 Million Talc Ovarian Cancer Verdict

Although Johnson & Johnson removed talc-based baby powder from the U.S. market in 2020, the company is facing lawsuits from more than 67,000 plaintiffs who say they were diagnosed with cancer after using its baby powder and other talc products. These ovarian cancer cases were the first to go to trial since the latest Chapter 11 attempt was dismissed. J&J attempted to resolve talc litigation through bankruptcy, which put most cases on hold, but its proposal was rejected three times by federal courts, most recently this past April. Before the bankruptcy attempts, J&J had a mixed record in ovarian talc trials, with the company winning some outright and other verdicts reduced on appeal. And in the past year, J&J has been hit with several substantial verdicts in mesothelioma cases.

Ovarian Cancer Trial

After jurors heard detailed evidence regarding duration of talc use, medical diagnoses, treatment histories, and personal impact, they determined that Johnson & Johnson’s Baby Powder and Shower to Shower body powder were defective, and that the company knew for years its talc-based products were dangerous yet it failed to provide adequate warnings: substantial factors in causing the plaintiffs’ ovarian cancer. (Under California law, jurors were instructed that they did not need to find talc was the sole cause of ovarian cancer — only that it was a “substantial factor” contributing to the disease.)

According to court records, Kent was diagnosed with ovarian cancer in 2014 and Schultz was diagnosed in 2018. At the trial, both women testified that they used J&J’s baby powder after bathing for 40 years, and their treatments for ovarian cancer have involved major surgeries and dozens of rounds of chemotherapy. Plaintiffs’ experts testified that talc particles can migrate through the reproductive tract and lodge in ovarian tissue, potentially triggering chronic inflammation associated with cancer development. And jurors were told that even if other risk factors existed, talc exposure could still meet the legal threshold for liability.

One plaintiffs’ attorney told the jury that J&J knew as far back as the 1960s that its product could cause cancer but the company still maintains that its products are safe, do not contain asbestos and do not cause cancer. Defense attorneys countered by pointing to regulatory approvals and studies that found no definitive causal link between talc use and ovarian cancer. According to Reuters, they argued that the science remains contested and that product labeling complied with applicable regulations. Jurors, however, sided with plaintiffs, indicating that regulatory compliance alone did not outweigh evidence of alleged corporate knowledge and failure to warn.

Next Up…

Post-trial motions are expected, including requests to reduce or overturn the damages award, according to Reuters. An appeal is also likely, particularly challenging expert testimony and causation findings. Even if damages are later reduced, legal analysts note that the jury’s liability determination remains significant. Findings that a company failed to warn consumers can drive settlement pressure in other pending cases, as prior talc verdicts have shown, Bloomberg Law reported.

Another jury, another talc verdict

The Los Angeles decision follows a separate, high-dollar talc verdict earlier this year. A Minnesota jury ordered the company to pay $65.5 million to a woman who alleged that long-term use of talc-based products caused her to develop mesothelioma, a cancer associated with asbestos exposure. Jurors found that the talc products were contaminated with asbestos and that Johnson & Johnson failed to adequately warn consumers.

While the Minnesota case involved mesothelioma rather than ovarian cancer, legal analysts say the verdicts are closely connected. Both cases alleged that J&J knew for years about potential asbestos or cancer risks associated with its talc products and continued selling them without warnings. Bloomberg Law also noted that both verdicts are similar: they suggest that juries in different jurisdictions are responding to a common theme: internal corporate knowledge matters, and regulatory compliance defenses may carry less weight when plaintiffs present evidence of delayed or insufficient warnings.

Although defense attorneys have argued that the science and exposure pathways differ significantly between mesothelioma and ovarian cancer cases, recent verdicts indicate that jurors remain receptive to broader failure-to-warn narratives. For now, jurors believed the evidence showed warnings came too late, and J&J must pay the price.