Design Highlights
- A Minnesota jury awarded $65.5 million to a claimant, highlighting concerns over Johnson & Johnson’s talc products linked to cancer.
- The verdict is part of ongoing litigation, with over 58,000 lawsuits filed against J&J related to talc safety.
- Health studies show a 20-30% increased risk of ovarian cancer linked to genital talc use, leading to severe legal repercussions for J&J.
- Despite evidence of asbestos in its talc products, J&J has not added warning labels, raising significant consumer safety concerns.
- The verdict underscores J&J’s pattern of prioritizing profits over safety, reflecting broader issues within the industry regarding corporate accountability.
In the ongoing saga of Johnson & Johnson and its talc products, one can’t help but wonder how a company could find itself at the center of so much controversy. The latest twist in this legal drama? A $65.5 million verdict from a Minnesota jury, though, curiously, the verdict seems to have vanished from the official record. Odd, right? It’s as if the company wants to sweep this under the rug, alongside all those pesky court cases.
While the Minnesota verdict is conspicuously absent, other states have not been shy about handing down significant judgments against J&J. For instance, a jury in Oregon awarded a staggering $260 million in June 2023 to a claimant suffering from mesothelioma. Virginia followed suit, with a $110 million verdict for a woman who used talc for about 40 years.
And let’s not forget the jaw-dropping $4.14 billion punitive award in St. Louis in 2018 that had everyone questioning J&J’s safety practices. It seems the courtroom is becoming the new battleground for talc-related grievances, with over 58,000 lawsuits piling up like a bad habit. As of November 2025, total pending cases in the talcum powder MDL have reached 67,670.
The science behind these cases is alarming. Studies have shown a 20-30% increase in the risk of ovarian cancer associated with genital talc use. The WHO has even classified talc as a carcinogen based on multiple studies. Evidence of asbestos in J&J products dates back to the 1970s, and you’d think that might prompt a company to rethink its product lineup.
Studies indicate a 20-30% rise in ovarian cancer risk from talc use, prompting serious questions about J&J’s product safety.
But no, J&J has stubbornly resisted warning labels despite decades of evidence suggesting the risk of cancer. It’s almost as if they believe ignorance is bliss.
Meanwhile, the company’s tactics have raised eyebrows. In the 1970s, J&J reportedly paid off an Italian doctor to downplay the cancer risk associated with talc.
And let’s not forget that internal memo from 1975 that prioritized positive publicity over actual safety studies. Talk about a company more focused on its bottom line than consumer safety.
As the trials continue, with new cases popping up in Florida and California, J&J is scrambling to settle. They’ve settled about 95% of mesothelioma lawsuits, which might sound like a win until you consider the sheer volume of claims. Given the complexity of these cases, the average claims processing timeline could stretch well beyond the standard 32.4 days seen in typical property and casualty insurance matters.
With the ongoing litigation, one must wonder if this saga will ever come to a close. But for now, the battles rage on, and the stakes remain high.
