Talcum Powder Lawsuit Updates & News (2025)

Senator Elizabeth Warren has reintroduced the Nondebtor Release Prohibition Act of 2024, aiming to close bankruptcy loopholes used by wealthy individuals and corporations to avoid liability.

Key provisions include:

• Ending Nonconsensual Shields: The bill bans liability protections for nonbankrupt entities, aligning with the Supreme Court's decision in Harrington v. Purdue Pharma, which rejected similar protections for the Sackler family.
• Targeting the Texas Two-Step: It seeks to block strategies like Johnson & Johnson’s divisional mergers, which isolate liabilities in subsidiaries and shield parent companies from lawsuits.

The bill has bipartisan momentum, driven by public outrage over corporate misuse of bankruptcy and growing voter demand for accountability. It could significantly impact Johnson & Johnson’s talc litigation strategy by invalidating divisional mergers from the past decade and requiring creditor consent for settlements.

This legislation marks a growing bipartisan push for corporate accountability in bankruptcy cases.

A bankruptcy judge has extended the hold on Johnson & Johnson baby powder lawsuits until mid-March as the company pursues its bankruptcy plan to resolve tens of thousands of claims. The judge declined to expand or lift the freeze during a recent hearing. J&J has proposed over $8 billion for settlement through a subsidiary created to handle the lawsuits. A January trial will determine if the bankruptcy plan will be approved.

The talcum powder MDL saw just three new filings in November, the slowest month in over a year. With 58,201 cases pending, efforts are increasingly concentrated on settling existing claims, though new cases are still being accepted.

The U.S. Trustee is challenging Johnson & Johnson's use of Jones Day as counsel for its subsidiary, Red River Talc LLC, in its bankruptcy. The objection stems from a potential conflict of interest, as Jones Day previously developed the "Texas Two-Step" strategy, allowing companies to shield parent assets by offloading liabilities to a subsidiary in bankruptcy. The case raises questions about future regulatory oversight of corporate restructuring strategies under different administrations.

In October, the Talcum Powder MDL saw an increase of 146 cases, raising the total to 58,198 pending cases. This continued growth underscores the ongoing concerns and claims linked to talc products.

In January 2025, a federal judge in Houston will review Johnson & Johnson’s latest proposal to resolve ongoing claims, following earlier unsuccessful bankruptcy attempts in New Jersey. Many plaintiffs have expressed frustration over the lengthy process and delays in resolution.

Johnson & Johnson and its subsidiaries have been ordered to pay $15 million in a Connecticut mesothelioma lawsuit. The case involved a real estate developer who developed mesothelioma due to asbestos exposure. The court found J&J liable for the plaintiff’s exposure, leading to the mesothelioma diagnosis.

The jury in a Connecticut mesothelioma trial will soon deliberate on the case of a Massachusetts real estate developer who is seeking $30 million in damages from Johnson & Johnson. J&J denies liability, suggesting the illness was due to a genetic mutation rather than asbestos exposure, but also argued that any potential award should be limited to $4 million. The defense’s mention of a potential verdict amount suggests uncertainty about the outcome.

The talcum powder multidistrict litigation (MDL) saw an addition of 115 new cases in September, bringing the total number of pending cases to 58,052. This ongoing litigation involves claims linking talcum powder products to health issues, with thousands of plaintiffs still awaiting resolution.

A federal judge in Texas has ruled that Johnson & Johnson’s use of bankruptcy laws to settle its baby powder cancer lawsuits was not improper. The decision permits J&J to continue its strategy of using a bankruptcy subsidiary, Red River Talc, to handle liability for these claims. This ruling is a significant win for J&J, as it pushes forward an $8 billion settlement plan reportedly backed by 83% of plaintiffs. For many victims, this could bring much-needed resolution to the long-running litigation.

The U.S. Trustee overseeing Johnson & Johnson's third talc-related bankruptcy has filed a motion to transfer the case from Texas to New Jersey. The Trustee accuses J&J of "forum shopping" by using its subsidiary, Red River Talc LLC, to file in a more favorable jurisdiction. According to the Trustee, Red River is essentially the same entity as the previously involved LTL Management, with identical assets and liabilities. The motion argues that J&J is attempting to avoid unfavorable rulings in New Jersey and stresses that the case should be returned to uphold fairness in the bankruptcy process.

A state judge in Oregon has overturned a $260 million jury verdict against Johnson & Johnson in a case involving talc powder and asbestos-linked mesothelioma. The judge granted J&J’s request for a new trial, with the written explanation pending. The plaintiff’s legal team plans to appeal.

Johnson & Johnson is expected to contribute an additional $1.1 billion, increasing the total settlement to more than $9 billion. The payments, related to ongoing litigation, will be made over the course of 25 years.

The total number of talc powder lawsuits has increased by 155 cases in the past month, reaching 57,937. This represents a modest 0.27% rise from the previous month’s total of 57,782.

Johnson & Johnson has asked a federal judge to dismiss a proposed national class action seeking medical monitoring for users of its talc-based products. The lawsuit aims to secure funds for ongoing health assessments for individuals exposed to these products who may not yet have been diagnosed with related illnesses.

The claim focuses on the need for regular medical evaluations to detect early signs of conditions like ovarian cancer. However, concerns have been raised that these lawsuits may dilute attention from those who have suffered significant harm.

A South Carolina jury awarded over $63 million to Michael Perry, who developed terminal mesothelioma from using J&J’s talc-based baby powder. The jury found both Johnson & Johnson and American International Industries (AII) negligent, linking their products to Perry’s condition. Perry received over $23 million in damages, and his spouse was awarded $9.6 million for loss of consortium. Additionally, punitive damages totaled $30 million against J&J and $760,000 against AII. Despite being cleared of fraudulent misrepresentation, J&J faces significant penalties.

At the end of July, talc claimants cast their votes on the latest settlement proposal. While the official results are still pending, early reports suggest that more than the required 75% of claimants have approved the plan.

J&J's argument that its talc powder does not cause cancer is crumbling. The World Health Organization recently confirmed that exposure to talc in Johnson’s Baby Powder likely increases cancer risk, particularly ovarian cancer. Initially dismissed as a fabrication by plaintiffs' lawyers, this connection is now becoming widely accepted.

A critical decision on a $6.5 billion settlement proposed by Johnson & Johnson to resolve baby powder ovarian cancer lawsuits is expected by the end of the month. This settlement is contingent on a supermajority agreement from the claimants.

The media is more focused on J&J’s dispute with a legal firm over its role in long-standing federal and state mass torts related to talcum powder injuries. J&J is seeking to disqualify the firm, alleging ethical violations, which some view as retaliatory, similar to a failed lawsuit against a plaintiff’s expert.

J&J's attempt to gain an advantage in talc litigation by filing lawsuits against plaintiffs’ experts failed. Their bankrupt talc unit lost its case against Dr. Jacqueline Moline, who was accused of not disclosing alternative asbestos exposure evidence and making false statements about J&J’s baby powder.

Key Points:

• Lawsuit Focus: The case centered on a 2019 article by Dr. Moline, which claimed that 33 plaintiffs using J&J talc products and developing mesothelioma had no other asbestos exposure.
• Court Ruling: The New Jersey federal court judge ruled that Dr. Moline’s statements are protected by the First Amendment, dismissing J&J’s claims.

Johnson & Johnson's bankruptcy settlement efforts continue, with the court likely allowing the company to settle claims in bankruptcy if the deal is successful.

Key Points:

• Motion Denied: On Friday, the MDL judge denied some claimants' motion for a temporary restraining order, stating they failed to show actual harm that would justify an injunction.
• Settlement Concerns: The judge dismissed arguments that the settlement would improperly limit funds for claimants, deeming concerns about future harm speculative and insufficient for a preliminary injunction.
• Next Steps: The stage is set for a settlement vote at the end of the month.

As of July 1, 2024, there was a slight decrease in cases, dropping from 57,365 to 57,624.

The talc powder settlement remains uncertain as plaintiffs' lawyers are divided on recommending Johnson & Johnson's offer to their clients. Currently, the general trend is leaning toward settlement.

Johnson & Johnson has settled for $700 million with 43 states and the District of Columbia over talcum powder marketing. Additionally, J&J agreed to stop marketing and manufacturing baby powder with talc, aiming to resolve talc powder-related litigation.

The first talcum powder cancer trial against Johnson & Johnson in Texas started this week in Dallas. Opening statements were made on Wednesday. The trial is expected to last 2-3 weeks.

The number of pending cases in the J&J talcum powder MDL has risen to 57,365, an increase of 4,000 since April 1st, indicating a surge in new case filings.

An Oregon jury ordered Johnson & Johnson to pay $260 million to Kyung Lee, who claimed their baby powder caused her mesothelioma. The jury awarded $200 million in compensatory damages and $60 million in punitive damages. Lee, diagnosed with cancer at 48, argued that the talc-based baby powder contained asbestos.

Research from the National Institutes of Health published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology supports over 50,000 lawsuits against Johnson & Johnson, claiming its talc-based baby powder causes ovarian cancer. The study found a significant link between genital talc use and ovarian cancer, especially with frequent or long-term use. These findings undermine Johnson & Johnson’s defense that its talc products are safe and asbestos-free, and likely jeopardize any potential settlement.

Johnson & Johnson, through its talcum subsidiary, announced a $6.5 billion settlement to resolve most ovarian cancer claims related to its talcum powder. This forms part of a larger $11 billion proposal, including previous settlements for mesothelioma claims. The company has urged victims to support a third bankruptcy attempt, a pre-packaged plan requiring 75% creditor approval. This strategy aims to manage the nearly 60,000 ongoing lawsuits, with J&J maintaining its stance that its talc products do not cause cancer. The bankruptcy strategy, allowing J&J to convert plaintiffs into unsecured creditors, seeks to streamline legal processes and potentially resolve claims by 2025.

Attorneys in the talc powder litigation are disputing the MDL judge's order to refile all Daubert motions. They argue that the directive, which was issued without detailed reasoning or prior discussion, lacks legal precedent and justification. Despite recent amendments to Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and new scientific insights, lawyers maintain these changes are unlikely to impact this case's rulings, which have previously been upheld on appeal. This has led to concerns over the necessity and validity of a complete procedural redo.

In a Chicago court, Johnson & Johnson and its spinoff, Kenvue Inc., have been held liable for $45 million in damages to the family of Theresa Garcia, who died from mesothelioma in 2020. The jury determined Kenvue was 70% responsible, while J&J was 30% at fault. The case centered on allegations that the companies' talcum-based baby powder was contaminated with asbestos. This ruling is one of the first major verdicts following the dismissal of a bankruptcy filing by a J&J unit last year, aimed at resolving similar lawsuits.

A Florida state court jury found that Johnson & Johnson's baby powder was not the cause of ovarian cancer in a Sarasota County woman, contrary to her family's claims. The lawsuit stated that she used the talc product daily from 1965 until her diagnosis in 2016. The verdict absolves J&J of responsibility in this case.

The jury in Florida is currently deliberating a talc powder trial where the plaintiff alleges that his wife's use of Johnson & Johnson's talc powder, approximately 41,000 times, led to her fatal ovarian cancer. According to the plaintiff's lawyer, 38 out of 40 studies presented during the trial supported the claim of an increased risk of ovarian cancer from talc use.

During a recent court session, a talc lawyer responded to accusations from Johnson & Johnson (J&J) of ethical breaches. The allegations centered around his supposed collaboration with a former J&J attorney in crafting a $19 billion settlement proposal in ongoing talcum powder litigation. In his defense, the lawyer clarified that the former J&J attorney had no role in shaping their settlement strategy. He dismissed the claims as trivial, suggesting J&J's actions were motivated by spite, and admitted that the situation reflects poorly on all parties involved.

In Sarasota, Florida, a wrongful death lawsuit has been initiated against Johnson & Johnson (J&J). The claim, filed by the widower of a woman who used J&J's baby powder for many years before succumbing to ovarian cancer, marks the second ovarian cancer trial following J&J's bankruptcy proceedings. The first trial involved an anesthesiologist's death, but it ended without a verdict due to a deadlocked jury in Miami, as detailed in our February 14th update.

MDL witnessed the addition of 143 new cases over the past month. While significant for other mass torts, this represents a mere .003% increase for the talc MDL, bringing the total to 53,939 pending cases.

Judge Michael A. Shipp has called for all parties involved to resubmit their Daubert motions due to updates in the Federal Rule of Evidence 702, recent scientific advancements, and aspects noted in Chief Judge Wolfson’s earlier Daubert Opinion. The new deadline for submission is set for July 23, 2024, with counterarguments due by August 22, 2024.

Plaintiffs' lawyers are contesting Johnson & Johnson's (J&J) attempt to block a subpoena for PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (PwC) records regarding J&J's talcum powder product liabilities. The subpoena demands details on how J&J managed its contingent liabilities in financial statements. J&J argues these are protected by attorney-client privilege. However, plaintiffs highlight the significance of these records, especially amid J&J's hints at filing for bankruptcy to manage talc lawsuit liabilities. They insist this data is essential for understanding J&J's financial strategy for settling talc claims.

After experiencing a surge in new talc claims at the end of last summer, the pace of filings in the talcum powder multidistrict litigation (MDL) has notably decreased. Since the beginning of this year, only approximately 60 new cases have been added to the MDL, indicating a slowdown in the rate of new claims being filed.

A Florida jury couldn't decide if Johnson & Johnson's baby powder caused a Miami anesthesiologist's cancer, resulting in a mistrial. The deceased's husband, a lawyer, sued the company for $14 million, claiming the powder caused his wife's death.

Johnson & Johnson intensifies its legal approach in the talcum powder litigation, targeting plaintiffs' experts and lawyers. The company subpoenaed Northwell Health Inc. for participant names in studies linking talcum powder to mesothelioma, diverging from the primary ovarian cancer claims. Additionally, J&J seeks to disqualify a key plaintiffs' attorney through a subpoena to consultancy KCIC, a strategy seen as an attempt to weaken the plaintiffs' representation.

January 2024 witnessed the introduction of 34 new lawsuits into the talcum powder class action MDL, increasing the total number of active cases to 53,767. This continuation of low case volume for the third month follows an initial influx of thousands of cases right after the lifting of the bankruptcy stay.

The talcum powder Multi-District Litigation (MDL) has undergone a change in the pace of new case filings:

• Initial Surge: Following the lifting of the bankruptcy stay at the end of summer, there was an increase in cases being added to the MDL.
• Recent Slowdown: However, this increase has recently slowed down, with only four new cases filed in the recent weeks.
• Current Total: There are now 53,733 cases in total.

Investors of Johnson & Johnson (J&J) have initiated a class action lawsuit, paralleling the allegations made in the personal injury and wrongful death claims of the talc baby powder litigation. This new lawsuit, which has been certified as a class action by a federal court judge in New Jersey, raises significant issues:

Misleading Statements: The crux of the investors' lawsuit is that J&J made deceptive public statements about its product safety and research commitments.

Internal Awareness: Investors allege that while J&J publicly vouched for the safety of its talc products, the company was internally cognizant of concerns. These concerns, raised by an external laboratory, pointed to the insufficiency of J&J's methods for detecting asbestos in its talc products.

This class action by J&J investors adds another dimension to the ongoing scrutiny of the company's practices and transparency, particularly regarding its talc products.

The final week of 2023 witnessed minimal activity in the talcum powder class action Multi-District Litigation (MDL) docket. Key updates include:

New Case Filings: Only 5 new cases were directly filed into the MDL.

Notice of Plaintiff's Death: A suggestion of death was filed for one of the approximately 50,000 plaintiffs who have pending claims in the MDL.

This slow pace marks a subdued close to the year for the talcum powder litigation, reflecting typical end-of-year lulls in legal proceedings.

In response to Johnson & Johnson's (J&J) recent motion accusing a plaintiffs' talc powder law firm of unethical conduct, the firm has issued a rebuttal. Key points in this ongoing legal dispute include:

J&J's Allegations: J&J filed a motion alleging that the plaintiffs' law firm formed an improper relationship with a former attorney who had previously worked with J&J. The accusation centered around the use of confidential information potentially gained through this collaboration.

Law Firm's Response: The plaintiffs’ law firm firmly denied any acquisition of privileged information, framing J&J's motion as a diversion from its own shortcomings in handling talc injury claims.

Context for Victims: While these developments might seem significant, they represent a minor issue in the broader scope of the talc litigation. The recent period has been relatively quiet, with a focus on settlements and the approaching holiday season.

Looking Ahead to 2024: As we move into the new year, the hope is that updates will increasingly focus on the progress towards a comprehensive global settlement in the talc powder litigation, aimed at compensating all affected victims.

Johnson & Johnson (J&J) is taking legal action to disqualify a plaintiffs’ attorney and their law firm from the ongoing talcum powder multidistrict litigation (MDL). The basis of J&J's argument is centered on:

Recent Partnership Concerns: The plaintiffs' attorney has formed a partnership with a former lawyer who previously represented the other side in the talcum powder cases. This partnership is particularly notable as it plays a role in negotiating a substantial $19 billion settlement for ovarian cancer claims linked to J&J’s talcum powder products.

Conflict of Interest and Confidentiality Issues: J&J contends that this new alliance could lead to a conflict of interest and unauthorized access to confidential information, which were part of the former lawyer's previous engagement.

This move by J&J adds a layer of complexity to the resolution process of the numerous talcum powder cases, highlighting the delicate balance between legal strategy and ethical considerations in high-stakes litigation.

The talcum powder cancer Multi-District Litigation (MDL) has seen an addition of just under 400 new lawsuits over the past month. This increase brings the total number of pending cases in the MDL to 53,729, reflecting a continuous growth in the volume of claims being filed.

The Talcum powder Multi-District Litigation (MDL) continues to expand, with an additional 300 cases filed in the past month, raising the total number of pending cases to 53,311. Since the lifting of the bankruptcy stay 10 weeks ago, the MDL has experienced a significant influx of over 6,000 new talc-related cases. This steady increase reflects the ongoing momentum and growing scale of the litigation surrounding talcum powder.

In California, a new trial has commenced against Johnson & Johnson, with the plaintiff alleging that his mesothelioma was caused by the company’s talcum powder. Defense attorney Kim Bueno contends that the plaintiff's cancer stems not from talcum powder, but from asbestos exposure at other locations, such as Naval Shipyards and a brakes factory near an asbestos plant. During her opening statement, Bueno criticized the plaintiff's narrow focus on talcum powder, terming it as “talc tunnel vision.” On the other side, the plaintiff maintains that there is no substantial evidence of significant asbestos exposure from any other sources, placing the responsibility squarely on Johnson & Johnson’s product.

Johnson & Johnson (J&J) is reportedly considering a third attempt at filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy for its LTL unit, in an effort to settle ongoing cancer-related lawsuits linked to its talc products. After facing rejection twice in New Jersey courts, where the Third Circuit ruled that the LTL (J&J subsidary company) didn’t demonstrate immediate financial distress or file in good faith, J&J is now eyeing the Southern District of Texas in the Fifth Circuit. The company appears to be strategizing on the potential for a more favorable outcome in this different jurisdiction. However, there's a strong indication that this move might not succeed, potentially leading to further financial expenditure by J&J without resolving the core litigation issues.

Los Angeles County has initiated legal action against Johnson & Johnson (J&J), alleging that the company's talc-containing products have led to cancer and mesothelioma among its residents. The lawsuit asserts that J&J was aware of the health risks for decades but continued to market these products regardless. The county is seeking damages and has highlighted in its lawsuit J&J's controversial "Texas two-step" legal maneuver, an attempt to manage liabilities through a subsidiary's bankruptcy that has been previously dismissed by courts. Additionally, the lawsuit accuses J&J of specifically targeting minority women in its advertising campaigns.

After nearly two years of stagnation due to Johnson & Johnson's (J&J) unsuccessful attempts to transfer the talcum powder litigation to bankruptcy, there's a shift in momentum. With the delay now concluded, at least temporarily, the judge overseeing the Multi-District Litigation (MDL) has issued a new scheduling order for six cases earmarked for bellwether trials. These trials involve plaintiffs who claim they developed cancer due to asbestos exposure from J&J's talc product, Shower-to-Shower. This move is seen as a significant step in advancing the litigation and addressing the claims of the plaintiffs.

After almost two years of stagnation due to Johnson & Johnson's unsuccessful attempts to shift the talcum powder litigation into bankruptcy, momentum is now being regained. The presiding judge in the talcum powder MDL has released a fresh scheduling order for six bellwether trials. These plaintiffs argue that their cancer diagnoses were a result of asbestos contamination in J&J's talcum product, Shower-to-Shower.

Johnson & Johnson is reportedly weighing the option of once again resorting to bankruptcy as a strategy to resolve the ongoing lawsuits alleging carcinogenic substances in its talc-based baby powder. This consideration, despite the expected unlikelihood of success mirroring their past two attempts, signals a potential advancement in settlement negotiations. J&J's consideration of this cumbersome process seems more like a strategic ploy to compel all parties involved to push forward, despite the added complications it presents.

Following the three-month mark since the cessation of the bankruptcy stay, the class action MDL against Johnson & Johnson has witnessed an influx of more than 16,000 new talcum powder lawsuits. Just last month, an additional 5,649 cases joined the fray, pushing the total number of pending litigations past the 50,000 threshold.

Johnson & Johnson secured a legal victory as an appellate court overturned a previous $223 million jury verdict awarded to consumers who claimed their cancers resulted from asbestos in the company's talc-based products. The court cited the influence of flawed scientific evidence on the initial verdict. With a retrial on the horizon, there's potential for an even larger judgment against J&J.

The lifting of the bankruptcy stay two months ago triggered a surge in new talcum powder lawsuits joining the MDL. In the initial 60 days post-stay, the MDL saw an influx of approximately 170 daily cases. Yet, in the past fortnight, this rate has decelerated to about 70 cases daily. Despite this reduced pace, the projection still stands at an upward of 2,000 fresh talc allegations on a monthly basis.

As of 2023, thousands of talcum powder lawsuits remain pending in courts across the U.S. The majority of these lawsuits are part of a multi-district litigation (MDL) in federal court, which consolidates similar lawsuits to expedite the legal process.

Amid thousands of lawsuits and growing public concern, Johnson & Johnson announced in May 2020 that it would stop selling its talc-based baby powder in the United States and Canada.

In 2020, Bloomberg reported that Johnson & Johnson was considering a plan to offload talc liabilities to a newly created business that could then seek bankruptcy protection. This could potentially impact future payouts and settlements.

Several multi-million-dollar verdicts have been appealed by Johnson & Johnson. In some cases, such as the $72 million and $55 million verdicts from 2016, the verdicts were overturned on jurisdictional grounds. However, plaintiffs have vowed to continue their legal battles.