case study on johnson and johnson baby products

A business journal from the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania

Knowledge at Wharton Podcast

Talcum trouble: where does j&j’s responsibility lie, may 11, 2016 • 25 min listen.

Johnson & Johnson has been accused of ignoring warnings linking its talcum powder to ovarian cancer and failing to inform users of that potential risk. Is it a case of prioritizing profits over safety?

• Public Policy

Adetunji T. Toriola and Robert Field on the J&J Baby Powder Case

Johnson & Johnson is battling claims that it has prioritized revenues over ethics after a recent court case awarded damages to a woman who was diagnosed with cancer following years of using its talcum powder. Although this was the third such case, the company maintains that the medical evidence of the links between ovarian cancer and talc is uncertain. However, despite scientific facts, its brand image could take some knocks, say experts at Wharton and Washington University.

The links between ovarian cancer and talcum powder are not clear, according to Adetunji T. Toriola , assistant professor in the division of public health sciences at Washington University School of Medicine and a molecular cancer epidemiologist at its Siteman Cancer Center. “Some studies have found increased ovarian cancer with increased use of talcum powder in the genital areas, while others have not,” he said.

Toriola noted that the Lyon, France-based International Agency for Research on Cancer had in 2006 classified the use of talc-based body powder as “possibly carcinogenic to humans.” According to him, that means “there is not sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in humans,” although the agency found sufficient evidence of that link in experiments with animals. “We need more data from prospective studies that follow women over time,” he said.

Could a case be made that J&J ignored the information or warnings from some of those studies? “It looks like they did. But there is no smoking gun at this point,” said Robert Field , Wharton lecturer in health care management and Drexel University law and health management professor. “[J&J] didn’t do what the asbestos companies did or the tobacco companies did, which was to actively suppress it. In those cases, you had billions and billions of dollars [awarded] in judgments.”

Toriola and Field discussed the ethical and business issues involved in the J&J case on the Knowledge at Wharton show on Wharton Business Radio on SiriusXM channel 111 . (Listen to the podcast at the top of this page.)

Talc Damages: A Brief Account

The latest case is the third J&J has faced over its talcum powder product. On May 2, a judicial circuit court for the City of St. Louis in Missouri awarded $55 million in damages to Gloria Ristesund of South Dakota, who had used J&J’s talc-based feminine hygiene products for nearly 40 years and was diagnosed with ovarian cancer in 2011. Her cancer is now in remission. The award includes $50 million in punitive damages, which are imposed when courts want to punish a defendant over and above simple compensation ($5 million in this case). J&J faces more than a thousand such lawsuits in courts, and has been accused of ignoring warnings linking its talcum powder to ovarian cancer and failing to inform users of that potential risk.

“There is no smoking gun at this point.” –Robert Field

Earlier this year, the same St. Louis court had awarded $72 million in damages to the family of another woman who had used the product and died of ovarian cancer. Three years ago, a South Dakota court had found the company to be negligent in not warning Deane Berg, the petitioner, of the risks associated with its baby talcum powder that she had used for 30 years, but it did not award any damages.

J&J will appeal the latest verdict, according to a company statement . “Multiple scientific and regulatory reviews have determined that talc is safe for use in cosmetic products and the labeling on Johnson’s Baby Powder is appropriate,” it said.

Uncertain Links, but a Damning Judgment

According to reports , J&J was aware of medical concerns over talcum use in the 1990s, but the firm ramped up promotion of its baby powder to African American and Hispanic consumers, who are heavy users of its product.

“One thing that looks very bad for J&J is that the indications from the data … that the risks are particularly heightened among African American and Hispanic women … and J&J promoted that use among this population,” Field said. “It certainly looks like they were singling out a minority group.”

According to Field, that link between J&J’s talcum powder and African American/Hispanic women has been damaging for the company. “[The company’s actions here were] not just negligent but almost intentional,” he said. “They were completely rough riding and ignoring the evidence because they saw a potentially lucrative market. It looked bad to the jury, and that is one of the reasons they tagged on these huge, punitive damages.”

But the medical evidence there is slim, according to Toriola. He said one of the risk factors for ovarian cancer is reproductive history and the use of birth control. “It is likely and possible that women of African American descent have a different reproductive history compared to Caucasian women,” he said. But he also noted that those with a family history of ovarian and breast cancer have a higher risk. “All that needs to be considered as well in this case.”

‘Drawing a Line in the Sand’

“I don’t think the issue in this case has to do with placing revenue objectives over ethical behavior,” said Wharton management professor John Kimberly . “It has more to do with the company drawing a line in the sand, in the belief that ultimately their approach to assuring product safety will be validated.”

“It has more to do with [J&J] drawing a line in the sand, in the belief that ultimately their approach to assuring product safety will be validated.” –John Kimberly

According to Kimberly, J&J must have “carefully considered the reputational risks” as it decided how to proceed with the latest case. “J&J, like any other company, and particularly any consumer products company, always has to be mindful of its reputation among consumers,” he said. “They clearly have opted for an aggressive defense of their approach to product safety in this case.”

Impact on Brand Image

J&J’s baby powder was one of its earliest products and was launched in 1894, six years after the company was founded in New Brunswick, New Jersey. “In that sense, it reflects the essence and core of the brand heritage,” said Wharton marketing professor Patti Williams . “And of course, it is closely associated with the baby-focused business, where the credo itself is very important to consumers.”

J&J earned a reputation for living by its credo of putting consumers before profits in its handling of the Tylenol case in 1982 , when bottles of the drug were found to contain traces of cyanide, resulting in seven deaths. The company spent more than $100 million in a nationwide recall of Tylenol, replacing bottles with new tamper-proof packaging.

That credo is “in J&J’s blood…. There is a real sense of what the credo means,” Wharton professor of legal studies and business ethics Thomas Donaldson told Knowledge at Wharton in a 2012 story . Around that time, the company faced a string of quality issues, including recalls of its Children’s Tylenol, Benadryl and hip-replacement devices, and a case involving its anti-psychotic drug Risperdal, where it agreed to pay a $158 million settlement.

According to Williams, J&J faces “a lot of risks” on the trust aspect in the fallout of the latest case. “Trust is crucial to a brand that has been built on its care and concern for babies,” she said. “To some extent the sense that the brand can be trusted to care for children is central to the essence of the J&J brand overall.”

“To the extent that consumers perceive this as the latest in a series of ways in which J&J hasn’t lived up to its credo, this could certainly be problematic for the brand.” –Patti Williams

Williams said it is not clear to what extent consumer perceptions of the J&J corporate brand — versus the individual product brands — still reflect the quality issues the company faced in earlier years. “However, I think that the centrality of [baby powder] to the J&J brand position is problematic,” she added. “To the extent that consumers perceive this as the latest in a series of ways in which J&J hasn’t lived up to its credo, this could certainly be problematic for the brand.”

Issues to Pursue

The case has brought into focus other issues that also merit attention, according to Toriola. He noted that the studies conducted thus far suggest a link to only one type of ovarian cancer, although that is the most common type. Also, only continued, long-term use of the talc could expose a person to those risks, as opposed to infrequent use, he added.

Toriola called for “a bigger investigation” into the suspected links between talcum powder use and ovarian cancer. “The most definitive evidence will come from a trial, but it is not ethical to conduct a trial,” he said. “The next step is a bigger study that just follows people over time who have used this product and compare it with others who have not used it. That is where you will find the ultimate evidence.”

Meanwhile, law firms have been actively pitching for business, promising to extract compensation for other users of the talcum powder. “The lawyers are all over the potential links between the use of the company’s talcum powder and the onset of ovarian cancer, sensing a potential gold mine,” noted Kimberly.

More From Knowledge at Wharton

How Low-income Households Can Secure Their Retirement Finances

What I’ve Learned: Olivia S. Mitchell

Automatic Retirement Savings for Low-income Households

Looking for more insights.

Sign up to stay informed about our latest article releases.

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

Johnson & Johnson wins a key court battle in baby powder case

Scott Horsley

Johnson & Johnson's baby powder is displayed on a table in this photo illustration. A federal judge has allowed Johnson & Johnson's spinoff of a unit to proceed with a controversial bankruptcy. Justin Sullivan/Getty Images hide caption

Johnson & Johnson's baby powder is displayed on a table in this photo illustration. A federal judge has allowed Johnson & Johnson's spinoff of a unit to proceed with a controversial bankruptcy.

A federal judge has allowed a company spun off by Johnson & Johnson to proceed with a controversial bankruptcy, despite complaints from thousands of people who say they were harmed by the consumer product giant's baby powder and who could now be denied a chance to sue.

J&J created the spinoff company, LTL Management, under a Texas law last fall , while facing some 38,000 lawsuits from people who say its baby powder was contaminated with asbestos, causing cancer and other ailments.

J&J, which also makes products such as Tylenol and Band-Aid, assigned legal liability for the complaints to the spinoff company, which immediately filed for bankruptcy — a maneuver dubbed the "Texas two-step."

Critics challenged the bankruptcy as a bad-faith effort to shield J&J itself from responsibility for an allegedly harmful product.

"The bankruptcy code was never intended to be abused in this way by massively profitable corporations as a means to delay or prevent cancer victims from having their day in court," said Jon Ruckdeschel, an attorney who represents some of the people pursuing J&J.

J&J is using a bankruptcy maneuver to block lawsuits over baby powder cancer claims

Judge acknowledges the ruling will frustrate plaintiffs.

Judge Michael Kaplan ruled Friday that LTL can proceed with the bankruptcy, leaving individual lawsuits on hold.

Kaplan acknowledged the frustration that would cause, but concluded bankruptcy offers a more efficient remedy for those who claim they were harmed by J&J.

"The Court is aware that its decision today will be met with much angst and concern," Kaplan wrote in his decision. "The Court remains steadfast in its belief that justice will best be served by expeditiously providing critical compensation through a court-supervised, fair, and less costly settlement trust arrangement."

Johnson & Johnson called the ruling "a positive development and a step forward to reaching a global resolution" of the lawsuits.

"We continue to stand behind the safety of Johnson's Baby Powder, which is safe, does not contain asbestos and does not cause cancer," the company said in a statement.

J&J stopped selling baby powder made with talc in the U.S. and Canada in 2020, saying consumers in those countries preferred a version made with corn starch. The company still sells talc-based baby powder in other countries.

Johnson & Johnson's consumer products include Band-Aid, Johnson's baby powder and Tylenol. Mike Derer/AP hide caption

Johnson & Johnson's consumer products include Band-Aid, Johnson's baby powder and Tylenol.

The controversial Texas two-step maneuver

While the bankruptcy process has been used for years to resolve large-scale product liability cases involving asbestos, silicone breast implants and birth control devices, the Texas two-step process is relatively new.

It's controversial because it allows a company to limit which of its assets are available to settle complaints.

"In an extreme case, a company that's facing a lot of litigation could stick all the litigation exposure — all of those liabilities — into one entity and stick everything else into the other entity, and the [Texas] statute doesn't do anything to stop that," said David Skeel, a bankruptcy expert at the University of Pennsylvania.

A judge temporarily halts baby powder cancer lawsuits against Johnson & Johnson

Appeals to the judge's ruling are likely.

Plaintiffs pursuing J&J promised to appeal Judge Kaplan's ruling.

"We are disappointed that J&J's stooge 'bankruptcy' filing for its fall-guy subsidiary LTL Management was not dismissed," Ruckdeschel said. "Americans suffering from cancer caused by J&J's asbestos-tainted talc have a constitutional right to have a jury decide their case."

Skeel notes that J&J has a market valuation of more than $430 billion and a credit rating higher than the U.S. government's. He suspects if the company is successful at limiting its liability through bankruptcy, copycats will soon follow.

"You could see companies start to push the envelope," Skeel said. "Companies that don't have thousands of lawsuits but maybe 10 lawsuits. It does have enormous implications for liability exposure going forward."

Some members of Congress want to rewrite the bankruptcy code to limit maneuvers like this.

"We need to close this loophole for good," Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said earlier this month. "Bankruptcy is supposed to be a good-faith way to accept responsibility, pay one's debts as best you can, and then receive a second chance, not a Texas two-step, get-0ut-of-jail-free card for some of the wealthiest corporations on earth like Johnson & Johnson."

• Johnson & Johnson
• Bankruptcy protection
• talcum powder
• Texas two-step

• Campaign for Safe Cosmetics

Visit Our Campaign for Safe Cosmetics

Johnson and Johnson’s Toxic Talc: A Timeline Toward Victory

At a glance.

On August 11, 2022, Johnson & Johnson announced they will stop the global sale of talc-based baby powder and finally transition to a safer corn-starch based formula for all its customers by 2023.

This victory is a long time coming and is the result of a global-wide movement of health and justice organizations, government agencies, investigative journalists and concerned people who took action to hold Johnson & Johnson (J&J) accountable for the sale of asbestos-contaminated talcum powder and its links to ovarian cancer and mesothelioma.

The following timeline is a snapshot of this tragedy and of the path toward victory. 

Download as PDF Flyer

Background on Talc Asbestos Contamination

Talc can become contaminated by asbestos during the mining process because naturally occurring veins of asbestos can run through talc deposits. Johnson & Johnson KNEW since the late 1950s that the talc used in its iconic baby powder was sometimes contaminated with asbestos, known to cause ovarian cancer and mesothelioma. For decades, J&J kept this contamination a secret from the public and regulators. In May of 2020, J&J announced it would stop selling its talc-based baby powder in the United States & Canada (although sell-downs of remaining product continued). This announcement was followed shortly with public statements from J&J acknowledging the leadership of Black Lives Matter and committing to racial equity in response to the unjust police killings of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, and hundreds of other Black men and women. These statements proved to be superficial and hollow: for two more years, the healthcare giant belittled health, and racist targeting & marketing concerns from the global community, and refused to initiate a worldwide ban on its toxic talc, choosing instead to expose Black and Brown communities around the world to this hazardous product. Until now.

Timeline of Johnson & Johnson Stop Selling Toxic Talc Campaign

FEBRUARY 2020: Ahmaud Arbery is stalked and murdered while jogging in Satilla Shores, Georgia

MARCH 2020: J&J faces over 20,000 lawsuits related to its talc-based baby powder and links to cancer

Breonna Taylor is shot and killed in her apartment by police officers in Louisville, Kentucky

APRIL 2020: Media exposé reveals that J&J ramped up marketing to “African American” and “overweight women” knowing the asbestos-related health concerns linked to use of their baby powder as U.S. sales dropped

One specific J&J memo suggests investigating “ethnic (African American/Hispanic) opportunities in order to grow the franchise,” while also referring to “negative publicity from the health community on talc,” including “inhalation, dust, negative doctor endorsement, cancer linkage.”

MAY 2020: J&J announces it will stop selling its talc-based baby powder in the United States & Canada

J&J continues to sell-down its remaining inventory in stores in the US and Canada, and refuses to stop selling its talc-based baby powder throughout the rest of the world.

George Floyd is murdered on the sidewalk by a police officer in Minneapolis, Minnesota

JUNE 2020: J&J issues a formal statement “in solidarity with Black Lives Matter”

The statement is released to J&J employees and its global customers in response to the protests spurred by the violent deaths of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor and Ahmaud Arbery “affirming (the) company’s commitment to justice and equality” and “unequivocally stating that racism in any form is unacceptable, and that black lives matter.”

India officials questions why J&J’s baby powder isn’t banned in India

Noting J&J’s announcement to withdraw its baby powder from North America “is aimed at safeguarding the health and human rights of residents and citizens of North America but not the residents and citizens of India.”

Black Women for Wellness (BWW) organizes leading U.S. health and justice organizations, and advocacy groups to call-out J&J’s racist double standards and harmful practices related to the sale of its talc-based baby powder

Outraged by J&J’s hypocrisy and its superficial commitment to racial equity, the groups launch a powerful campaign, demanding the multinational giant end its racist double standard of protecting North Americans from – while exposing women of color around the world to – its toxic talc.

JULY 2020 : BWW sends a letter to J&J, signed by 170+ NGOs from around the world, urging the corporation to commit to stop selling their talc-based powder globally

The groups also urge a voluntarily recall – and safely dispose of – any existing inventory to protect people from the potential, serious adverse health effects presented by asbestos contaminated talc ranging from ovarian cancer to mesothelioma. 

J&J responds 3 days later with a dismissive, condescending email that ignores the important issues raised by BWW’s letter.

AUGUST 2020 : BWW sends a second letter to J&J, this time signed by over 200 orgs from 51 countries around the world demanding J&J stop global sales of its toxic talc.

BWW concurrently launches a global week of action to draw worldwide attention to J&J’s misconduct. NGO partners join in from all over the world raising public awareness and generate global media coverage.

NOVEMBER 2020: Congo-Brazzaville: Gov’t suspends the importation and sale of J&J’s talc-based baby powder

JUNE 2021: J&J is ordered to pay $2.2 billion to 22 women who got ovarian cancer after using its talc-based products

The Missouri court states the company’s decision not to warn people when it knew its baby powder could be contaminated with asbestos was driven by “evil motive or reckless indifference.”

JULY 2021: NGO, the National Council of Negro Women, files a lawsuit against J&J

The group accused the company of “knowingly deceptive marketing to Black women” for decades — with free samples at beauty salons, radio campaigns and other efforts — despite internal concerns that the product might be harmful.

OCTOBER 2021: J&J files for bankruptcy and creates a subsidiary to hold all of the liabilities associated with the 40K lawsuits filed against them

This legal maneuver is referred to as a “Texas Two-Step” and is used by companies to circumvent jury trials involving allegations of misconduct and avoid financial liability for court-issued judgments against them.

MARCH 2022: Court documents reveal J&J’s 1970s testing of talc predominantly on Black people while incarcerated

Previously unsealed, trial documents show the company funded experiments mainly on Black men comparing the effects of talc and asbestos on their skin. In one study, inmates were injected with potentially cancer-causing asbestos so J&J could compare its effect on their skin versus that of talc. 

APRIL 2022: HBO Max documentary NOT SO PRETTY spotlights J&J’s toxic talc

J&J shareholders vote in favor of company-wide racial audit

In a resolution introduced by Mercy Investment Services addressing on-going concerns about J&J’s history of racist targeting, shareholders vote overwhelmingly in support of requiring the company to partake in a third-party racial audit. 

J&J prevents shareholders from seeing video testimony on health concerns linked to use of the company’s talc-powder

Produced by NGO Tulipshare , J&J bans video testimony from health-impacted people and concerned scientists, justice-leaders and legislators from shareholder meeting where a vote to stop sales of baby powder is on the agenda. 

AUGUST 2022: VICTORY! Johnson & Johnson announces it will discontinue talc-based baby powder globally in 2023

While the company continues to deny any wrong-doing and defends the safety of their product, Johnson and Johnson announces it will start using cornstarch, not talc, in all the baby powder it sells around the world. 

Today, Johnson and Johnson faces over 40,000 lawsuits and trillions of dollars in civil penalty claims and settlements

Companies like Johnson & Johnson have long created, manipulated, and capitalized off cultural norms, actively targeting Black and Brown women without disclosing the potential risks associated with use of this product, even as internal J&J documents reference concerns linked to carcinogenic effects of its talc-based powders. This is an important victory, but also one filled with decades of tragedy, and outrageous actions and practices from an industry that continues to put profit and bottom-line over the health and safety of people. 

To learn more about the campaign, references, the history, and how you can get involved in action campaigns to hold corporations accountable visit: https://bwwla.org/johnson-johnson/

U.S. Organizing Committee

Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments, Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization, Black Women for Wellness, Breast Cancer Prevention Partners, Campaign for Healthier Solutions, Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, Clean Water Action, Coming Clean, Until Justice Data Partners, Materials Research, Mind the Store Campaign, National Women’s Health Network, Sierra Club Gender, Equity & Environment Program, U.S. Public Interest Research Group, WE ACT for Environmental Justice, Women’s Voices for the Earth

Get the Timeline as a PDF Flyer  

Download, screenshot, or print your version of the victory timeline, thanks to our partners at Women’s Voices for the Earth . 

Take action for safe cosmetics

Did you know it’s perfectly legal to sell cosmetics with ingredients known to cause cancer in the U.S.? We can change this – help make cosmetics and personal care products safer for all.

Topics: Cosmetics Environmental Justice Equity Lawsuits Personal Care Products

Types: Document , Fact Sheet

Related Resources

Race, Power, and Inequities

VICTORY: Johnson & Johnson to Discontinue Talc-Based Baby Powder Globally

Big win for public health: johnson & johnson to stop selling iconic baby powder in the u.s. & canada due to asbestos contamination, but more needed, bcpp joins 183 ngos from 51 countries to demand johnson & johnson halt global sales of popular talc-based baby powder.

BCPP and Klean Kanteen, our partners in prevention, have been nominated for a 1% for the Planet Summit Award! We need your help to win.

You have successfully subscribed.

• - Google Chrome

Intended for healthcare professionals

• My email alerts
• BMA member login
• Username * Password * Forgot your log in details? Need to activate BMA Member Log In Log in via OpenAthens Log in via your institution

Search form

• Advanced search
• Search responses
• Search blogs
• News & Views
• Johnson & Johnson pays...

Johnson & Johnson pays $700m to 42 US states to settle Baby Powder asbestos claims

• Related content
• Peer review

Johnson & Johnson (J&J) has finalised a $700m (£552m; €654m) settlement with 42 US states and the District of Columbia to end their lawsuit alleging that the company knew that its talcum based products, including the iconic Johnson’s Baby Powder, contained asbestos and threatened human health. 1

The settlement, which awaits final approval by a judge, still leaves the company facing litigation from about 54 000 people with ovarian cancer and hundreds with mesothelioma. J&J has set aside $11bn for potential payouts in those claims.

Under the settlement’s terms J&J agrees to permanently desist from making or marketing products containing talcum. The company stopped using talcum in its North American products in 2020, switching to a corn starch based formula. It continued selling talcum based products elsewhere in the world until last year.

But, despite paying out billions in settlements, J&J maintains that its talcum products never contained asbestos and posed no health risks. The switch to corn starch, it said, was driven by reduced demand that was “fuelled by misinformation around the safety of the product and a constant barrage of litigation advertising.” Its …

Log in using your username and password

BMA Member Log In

If you have a subscription to The BMJ, log in:

• Need to activate
• Log in via institution
• Log in via OpenAthens

Log in through your institution

Subscribe from £184 *.

Subscribe and get access to all BMJ articles, and much more.

* For online subscription

Access this article for 1 day for: £50 / $60/ €56 ( excludes VAT )

You can download a PDF version for your personal record.

Buy this article

Johnson & Johnson hit by 11,000 more lawsuits linking Baby Powder to cancer after judge throws $9 billion settlement case

Johnson & Johnson  has seen at least a 28% surge in new lawsuits claiming its talc-based Baby Powder causes cancer a little more than five weeks after the company’s plan to resolve the cases was  tossed  from bankruptcy court.

A New Jersey judge overseeing all the federal talc litigation said in a Sept. 6 court hearing that more than 11,000 new complaints have been filed, according to a court transcript. J&J had sought to resolve at least 40,000 talc suits for about $9 billion through the bankruptcy of its  LTL Management  unit, which was created to end health claims tied to talc allegedly tainted with a toxic substance. But a bankruptcy judge threw the case out July 28.

The escalation in claims is likely to complicate efforts by J&J to settle almost a decade of suits alleging talc-based Baby Powder causes ovarian cancer and another cancer linked to asbestos exposure. The company, which has appealed the bankruptcy’s dismissal, is preparing to defend itself in a state-court trial in California that’s slated to start next month.

“J&J has dug themselves quite a hole in the talc litigation, and it just keeps getting deeper and deeper,” said Carl Tobias, a University of Richmond professor who teaches about mass tort law. “They need to seriously think about adding some significant money to their settlement offer so they can get these cases off the books.”

J&J said it wasn’t surprised by the jump in lawsuits, because new ones weren’t permitted once LTL began bankruptcy proceedings in 2021. “Following the bankruptcy dismissal, we fully anticipated plaintiff lawyers would immediately file the cases they had been collecting since 2021,” the company said in an emailed statement. “Johnson & Johnson and LTL are prepared to return to the tort system and vigorously defend the Company in talc-related cases.”

Pulled From Shelves

The New Brunswick , New Jersey-based company  pulled  its talc-based powders off the market in the US and Canada in 2020, citing slipping sales. The world’s largest maker of health-care products replaced talcum with a cornstarch-based version. J&J vowed to remove all its baby powders containing talcum powder worldwide by the end of this year.

J&J faces a spate of jury trials early next year over allegations its executives knew since the early 1970s that talc contained trace amounts of asbestos, but failed to alert consumers or regulators. J&J contends its talc-based products don’t cause cancer and the company has marketed Baby Powder appropriately for more than 100 years.

As part of its maneuver in bankruptcy court, J&J offered nearly  $9 billion  to resolve all its current and future liability in the talc litigation, but plaintiffs rejected it as financially inadequate. An appeals court concluded J&J misused the bankruptcy process by having a unit seek Chapter 11 protections in hopes of fostering a settlement.

Tossed Again

J&J filed a second bankruptcy case in hopes of reviving settlement chances, but a judge in New Jersey threw that case out, finding the talc litigation hadn’t caused J&J sufficient financial stress to justify using the bankruptcy process to resolve it. J&J pointed to a  $4.7 billion  jury verdict handed down in 2018 in a Missouri talc case as an example of why it couldn’t cope with the litigation via the regular tort system.

After the US Supreme Court  refused  to take J&J’s appeal of the award — which was reduced to $2.1 billion — the company ultimately paid the 20 women in the case. J&J has faced numerous talc trials over the past decade, winning some, losing others and settling some claims.

Holly Froum and Negisa Balluku,  Bloomberg Intelligence  analysts, said earlier this month J&J may wind up paying as much as $10 billion to resolve its talc liability after the bankruptcy’s dismissal. Earlier this year,  Chris Schott , a JPMorgan Chase & Co. analyst, has estimated J&J’s total talc liability at between $8 billion and $10 billion.

In a February securities filing, J&J reported the company was facing 40,300 filed cases claiming its talc-based powders caused cancer. With the 11,000 new cases, that total case count has risen to 51,300. That number also doesn’t account for cases filed in state courts.

US District Judge Michael Shipp, who is overseeing federal-court talc cases consolidated for pre-trial information exchanges and test trials, said in the Sept. 6 hearing he doesn’t expect any cases to be tried before him until next year.

“It appears that the earliest the parties will be prepared to proceed to a bellwether trial will be either late 2024 or early 2025,” Shipp said, according to the transcript.

The case is In Re Johnson & Johnson Talcum Powder Products Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation, 16-md-2738, U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (Trenton).

— With assistance by Steven Church

Latest in Health

Is melatonin or ashwagandha better for sleep? Experts weigh in

Tennis players may live 10 years longer. How the sport boosts physical and mental health

Staying fit as you age isn’t just about exercise. Experts say to prioritize these 4 habits

Suspect who hit NHL’s Johnny Gaudreau and his little brother drank five or six beers before the crash: report

Warren Buffett turns 94 today. His secret to longevity? Coca-Cola, candy, and a life of joy

The dangers of driving high—and why so many believe it’s safe when it’s not

Most popular.

Watch CBS News

Johnson & Johnson reaches $700 million settlement in talc baby powder case

By Khristopher J. Brooks

Edited By Anne Marie Lee

Updated on: June 11, 2024 / 6:53 PM EDT / CBS News

Johnson & Johnson has agreed to pay $700 million in a nationwide settlement resolving allegations that it misled customers about the safety of its talcum-based powder products in its marketing. 

"Consumers rely on accurate information when making decisions about which products to purchase for their families," Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul, one of 43 attorneys general involved in the lawsuit,  said  in a statement Tuesday. "Any company — no matter how large — must be held accountable when laws protecting consumers are broken and their trust is violated."

As part of the  settlement , which is still pending judicial approval, the health products giant will permanently stop the manufacturing, promotion and sale of all of its baby powder and other body and cosmetic products that contain talcum powder. That includes Johnson's Baby Powder and Johnson & Johnson's Shower to Shower. The company decided to  pull talc-based powders off the market  in North America  in 2020 . 

J&J will make four settlement payments, starting at the end of July, to 42 states and Washington, D.C., according to the settlement. 

In a statement, J&J's worldwide vice president of litigation, Erik Hass, said the company "continues to pursue several paths to achieve a comprehensive and final resolution of the talc litigation. That progress includes the finalization of a previously announced agreement that the Company reached with a consortium of 43 State Attorneys Generals to resolve their talc claims. We will continue to address the claims of those who do not want to participate in our contemplated consensual bankruptcy resolution through litigation or settlement."

The $700 million settlement is the latest development in decade-long legal battles and investigations into links between cancer and the talc used in one of its best-known products. More than 50,000 claims have been filed against the company, mostly on behalf of women who developed ovarian cancer. 

Earlier this month, a jury in Oregon  awarded $260 million  to a local woman who claimed that the company's baby powder products were "directly responsible" for her  cancer diagnosis in 2003. In April, a jury awarded $45 million to the family of an Illinois woman who died in 2020 from mesothelioma after being exposed to asbestos in J&J powder. 

Last month, J&J offered to pay $6.5 billion  to settle the talc-powder lawsuits. 

• Johnson & Johnson
• Class-Action Lawsuit

Khristopher J. Brooks is a reporter for CBS MoneyWatch. He previously worked as a reporter for the Omaha World-Herald, Newsday and the Florida Times-Union. His reporting primarily focuses on the U.S. housing market, the business of sports and bankruptcy.

More from CBS News

Motorcade accompanying VP nominee Tim Walz involved in crash

Volkswagen could close plant in Germany for the first time ever

Here are the hotels across the U.S. impacted by a worker strike

HP pursues suit against tech mogul who died when his yacht sank

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Johnson & Johnson to End Talc-Based Baby Powder Sales in North America

The company has faced thousands of lawsuits from cancer patients who claim that its talc was contaminated with asbestos, a known carcinogen, and that the company knew of the risks.

By Tiffany Hsu and Roni Caryn Rabin

Johnson & Johnson is discontinuing North American sales of its talc-based baby powder, a product that once defined the company’s wholesome image and that it has defended for decades even as it faced thousands of lawsuits filed by patients who say it caused cancer .

The decision to wind down sales of the product is a huge concession for Johnson & Johnson, which has for more than a century promoted the powder as pure and gentle enough for babies.

The company said on Tuesday that it would allow existing bottles to be sold by retailers until they ran out. Baby powder made with cornstarch will remain available, and the company will continue to sell talc-based baby powder in other parts of the world.

Johnson & Johnson has often said that faulty testing, shoddy science and ill-equipped researchers are to blame for findings that its powder was contaminated with asbestos. But in recent years, thousands of people — mostly women with ovarian cancer — have said that the company did not warn them of potential risks that the company was discussing internally.

Even as it announced the withdrawal of its baby powder, the company said that it “will continue to vigorously defend the product” in court. But Johnson & Johnson acknowledged that demand for the talc-based version had slumped as consumer habits changed and concerns about the product spread.

For decades, baby powder’s main ingredient was talc, a mineral known for its softness. Sold in an iconic white bottle, its fragrance is said to be one of the most recognizable in the world.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and  log into  your Times account, or  subscribe  for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?  Log in .

Want all of The Times?  Subscribe .

• Fierce Pharma
• Fierce Biotech
• Fierce Healthcare
• Fierce Life Sciences Events
• Cell & Gene Therapy
• Drug Delivery
• Warning Letters
• Special Reports
• Special Report
• Awards Gala
• Fierce Events
• Industry Events
• Whitepapers

Oregon jury says Johnson & Johnson must pay $260M in mesothelioma talc case

Johnson & Johnson is pursuing a “plan of reorganization” aimed at resolving 99.75% of the 60,000-plus talcum powder lawsuits the company faces. While that $6.5 billion settlement plan would clear the company of ovarian cancer claims, there’s still talc-related mesothelioma lawsuits for J&J to reckon with.

And while the drugmaker recently said it has resolved 95% of the mesothelioma lawsuits, the ones that remain are problematic.

Case in point: On Monday, a Portland, Oregon, jury awarded $260 million to a 49-year-old woman who claimed that more than 30 years of use of Johnson’s Baby Powder caused her mesothelioma.

Kyung Lee, who is a mother of three from Beaverton, Oregon, was diagnosed with the uncurable cancer in August of 2023. The disease, which attacks the lining of the lungs, is caused by exposure to asbestos.

“For years, Kyung and her family used Johnson & Johnson’s Baby Powder not having any idea it could lead to a life-ending illness,” Lee’s attorney Ben Adams of Dean Omar Branham Shirley, said in a release.

The jury’s award consisted of $200 million in punitive damages and $60 million in compensatory damages. J&J legal chief Erik Haas said in a statement that J&J plans to “immediately appeal” and is “confident that the verdict will be reversed, like the majority of aberrant adverse verdicts that have no basis in the law or science.”

J&J, which took the product off the market in the United States in 2020 and now sells a cornstarch-based version, has pointed to independent studies that show its talc does not contain asbestos or cause cancer.

During the trial, Lee’s attorneys claimed J&J kept the product on the market after finding that it did contain asbestos.

While the company has prevailed in a majority of talc cases, it has suffered some noteworthy losses, including a $2.1 billion decision in Missouri awarded to 22 women who claimed the baby powder caused their ovarian cancer.

J&J is hoping to reach a settlement with ovarian cancer claimants whose cases have been consolidated in New Jersey. If 75% of the plaintiffs sign on, the settlement will resolve all the claims.

J&J Ordered by Jury to Pay $260 Million to Baby Powder User

By Jef Feeley

Johnson & Johnson was ordered by an Oregon jury to pay $260 million to a woman who blamed her cancer on life-long use of the company’s baby powder as the drugmaker strives to wrap-up litigation over the now-withdrawn product.

The state-court jury in Portland, Oregon, found late Monday that J&J was responsible for Kyung Lee’s mesothelioma – a cancer tied to asbestos exposure — and awarded her $200 million in compensatory damages and $60 million in punitive damages. Lee was diagnosed with the often-fatal cancer last year at age 48. She argued J&J’s talc-based baby powder was tainted with asbestos.

“For years, Kyung and her family used Johnson & Johnson’s Baby Powder not having any idea it could lead to a life-ending illness,” Ben Adams , one of her lawyers, said in an emailed statement. “Today, Ms. Lee was able to see justice and secure a future for her family after she is gone.”

J&J now faces more than 61,000 suits blaming talc for different types of cancers. Many of the cases have been consolidated before a federal judge in New Jersey. Other cases are set to start trial in state courts. Jurors in state court in Dallas will begin hearing evidence in another talc trial next week.

The verdict comes as J&J pushes forward with an effort to persuade users of the baby powder to back an $11 billion settlement of all current and future lawsuits that would be facilitated by another bankruptcy filing by a J&J unit. Starting this week, consumers can vote to support the deal as part of preparations for a third bankruptcy filing.

J&J officials said they’d appeal the Oregon verdict and are confident it will be thrown out.

“The verdict is irreconcilable with the decades of independent scientific evaluations confirming talc is safe, does not contain asbestos, and does not cause cancer,” Erik Haas, worldwide vice president of litigation, said in a statement.

J&J, based in New Brunswick, New Jersey, pulled its talc-based powders off the market in the US and Canada in 2020, citing slipping sales. The world’s largest maker of health-care products replaced talc with a cornstarch-based version. The company vowed to get all its talc-based baby powders off the market worldwide by the end of last year.

J&J has steadfastly maintained talc doesn’t cause cancer and that it has appropriately marketed its baby powder for more than 100 years. The company has spent billions settling other mesothelioma cases to clear the way for a new bid to use the bankruptcy courts to resolve the talc litigation.

This time around, the world’s largest maker of health-care products seeks a so-called “pre-packaged” bankruptcy under rules allowing companies to speed through Chapter 11 cases if they have enough creditor support. In bankruptcy court, tort plaintiffs are converted into unsecured creditors.

The new plan calls for the company to pay $6.48 billion over 25 years to resolve the ovarian cancer claims, though it’s unclear what portion will be set aside for current cases and how much would be placed in a trust for future claims. Consumers have eight weeks to decide whether to back the offer.

“We fully expect to secure a favorable vote, as the plan is in the best interests of claimants,” Haas noted in an emailed statement. “The time has come to end this litigation.”

Some lawyers for former baby powder users oppose the deal, saying it provides paltry payouts and will wrongfully force settlements upon injured consumers.

“J&J is moving forward with its third bankruptcy in less than three years,” Andy Birchfield , a lawyer for former baby powder users, said in a statement. “At the same time, an Oregon jury sends a clear message about the seriousness of J&J’s talc problem. J&J needs to get the message: don’t strip women of their right” to their day in court.

The Oregon case is Lee v. Johnson & Johnson, 2 3CV400369, Fourth Judicial District Circuit Court for Multnomah County, Oregon (Portland).

To contact the reporter on this story: Jef Feeley in Wilmington, Delaware at [email protected]

To contact the editors responsible for this story: Misyrlena Egkolfopoulou at [email protected]

Anthony Aarons, Steve Stroth

© 2024 Bloomberg L.P. All rights reserved. Used with permission.

Learn more about Bloomberg Law or Log In to keep reading:

Learn about bloomberg law.

AI-powered legal analytics, workflow tools and premium legal & business news.

Already a subscriber?

Log in to keep reading or access research tools.

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

PRODUCT LIABILITY OF JOHNSON & JOHNSON BABY PRODUCTS

This paper focuses on the Johnson and Johnson‟s baby product liability in practice and related case studies. It represents an overview of how Johnson & Johnson‟s baby product liability and clarifies the problems occurred to consumer. Product liability is the related parties‟ responsibility along the manufacture chain of any product for damage caused by that product. It is useful to protect consumer from unnecessary risks and problems from harmful end product, or mischievous parties involved for the sake of business profit. The case studies of Johnson & Johnson in baby product liability malpractices and issues are beneficial to give important information to consumer to handle the similar situation and improvement suggestion to manufacturer on how to avoid similar problems and satisfy the consumer for better and healthy production.

Related Papers

Jessica Nava

Journal of Marketing

Michael Luchs

Journal of Brand Management

Adelina Broadbridge

imesha damayanthi

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to investigate the impact of different levels of environmental information on key consumer metrics. More specifically, it aims to evaluate environmentally benign products against those that have negative environmental impacts. Design/methodology/approach – Multiple product categories and messages that varied from strongly negative to strongly positive were used to test whether the accuracy/completeness of the information changes consumers' view of green products. Findings – The results show that consumer perception of product quality, value, and purchase intentions does not differ significantly between products with positive environmental messages and those without any message. Products with positive environmental messages are viewed better than products with negative environmental messages. It is also found that the impact of environmental information is greater for consumable products. Practical implications – Clearly presented information can make a significant difference in consumer evaluation of products. If green products highlighted the reasons why products free of harmful ingredients did not have a negative impact on the environment, and if non-green products were required to disclose the harmful impact of their ingredients, green products would be favorably perceived over the non-green alternative. Social implications – The paper conjectures that if " fair " and clear explanations of environmental impact, both good and bad, are required, consumer evaluations of green products will improve and, ultimately, a larger percentage of consumers will purchase green products. The findings suggest that policy makers should require manufacturers to disclose key product ingredients and their environmental impact. Originality/value – This project adds to the growing body of literature on environmental labeling, and investigates the effects of different levels of environmental information on key consumer metrics.

Jamielee Nicolas

Rachael Wakefield-Rann

The core values of both luxury and sustainability are at odds with a consumer culture characterised by cheap, disposable products and undervalued natural resources. Although some product categories within the luxury goods sector have upheld the values of quality and durability, others, such as personal care, have come to rely on materials and processes that are harmful to ecosystems and human health. The luxury personal care industry trades on qualities of purity, freshness, beauty and the 'natural'. However, the industry remains unsustainable through its continued use of single-use plastic packaging and particular synthetic chemical additives. For this to change, the way in which personal care products are delivered and administered must be fundamentally redesigned. This chapter presents a case study of luxury personal care company LUSH, and examines how its innovative approach to service design could provide a genuinely sustainable model for luxury personal care companies, and potentially the broader industry. The central elements of this model include local production, 'naked' products, short expiry dates, and innovative retail design.

Kofi Inkoom

Abdul Kader Mohiuddin

Jillian McHenry

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

Jury orders J&J to pay $4.7 billion in Missouri asbestos cancer case

• Medium Text

Reporting by Tina Bellon in New York; editing by Leslie Adler and Rosalba O'Brien

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles. , opens new tab

Cryptoverse: Bitcoin ETFs take $50 billion baby steps toward big time

Last October, Matthew Hougan told an industry panel that he expected spot bitcoin exchange-traded funds (ETFs) to attract $55 billion of assets in their first five years.

Johnson & Johnson to pay $6.5 billion to resolve nearly all talc ovarian cancer lawsuits in U.S.

Johnson & Johnson  on Wednesday said it plans to pay $6.5 billion over 25 years to settle nearly all of the thousands of lawsuits in the U.S. claiming its talc-based products caused ovarian cancer, pending approval of the claimants.

Those cases have for decades caused financial and public relations trouble for J&J, which contends that its now-discontinued talc baby powder and other talc products are  safe  for consumers. About 99% of the talc-related lawsuits filed against J&J and its subsidiaries stem from ovarian cancer. 

The company recorded a charge of about $2.7 billion in the first quarter to raise its reserve for talc claims to about $11 billion.

The deal, pending approval by claimants, would allow J&J to resolve the lawsuits through a third bankruptcy filing of a subsidiary company, LTL Management.   Courts have rebuffed J&J’s two previous efforts to resolve the lawsuits through the bankruptcy of that subsidiary, which was created to absorb the company’s talc liabilities.

J&J will begin a three-month voting period for claimants, in hopes of reaching a 75% support threshold needed for a bankruptcy settlement that would end the litigation entirely and prevent future lawsuits. Claimants did not have the opportunity to vote in LTL Management’s previous bankruptcy cases, J&J executives said on a call with investors on Wednesday.

J&J has the “significant support of the overwhelming majority of the claimants” based on conversations with their lawyers or representation, the executives added.

“We firmly believe this plan is in the best interest of claimants and should receive a favorable and immediate confirmation from the bankruptcy court,” said Erik Haas, J&J’s worldwide vice president of litigation, during the call.

More from CNBC

• Amazon-backed Anthropic launches iPhone app and business tier to compete with OpenAI’s ChatGPT
• Private payrolls increased by 192,000 in April, more than expected for resilient labor market
• DOJ charges ‘Bitcoin Jesus’ with $48 million tax fraud, seeks extradition

He contended the settlement is a far better recovery for claimants than would be likely in a trial.

“As that track record shows, most of bearing claimants have not recovered, nor are they expected to ever recover anything at trial,” Haas said. “At the rate at which use cases have been tried, it would take decades to try the remaining cases meaning most claimants will never see their day in court.”

Still, litigation has resulted in some large verdicts for claimants. That includes a  roughly $2 billion  award in favor of 22 women who blamed their ovarian cancer on asbestos in J&J’s talc products.

Shares of J&J rose more than 2% in premarket trading Wednesday.

J&J said the remaining pending lawsuits relate to a rare cancer called mesothelioma and will be addressed outside of the new settlement plan. The pharmaceutical giant said it has already resolved 95% of mesothelioma lawsuits filed to date.

J&J noted on Wednesday that it has reached “final and comprehensive”  settlements  to resolve an  investigation  by a coalition of more than 40 states into claims the company misled patients about the  safety  of its  talc baby powder  and other talc-based products.

The company has also reached an agreement in principle to resolve claims brought by suppliers of its talc, which include Imerys Talc America, Cyprus Mines Corporation and their related parties.

Annika Kim Constantino covers the biotech and pharmaceutical industry for CNBC Digital.