“The only thing they did was be loyal to Johnson & Johnson as a customer for only 50 years.” That was the blunt line from the plaintiffs’ lawyer after a Los Angeles jury on Friday ordered Johnson & Johnson to pay $40 million to two women who say decades of using the company’s talc-based powders caused their ovarian cancer.
The decision, in brief
The split award sends $18 million to Monica Kent and $22 million to Deborah Schultz and her husband. Kent was diagnosed in 2014 and Schultz in 2018; both testified that they used J&J’s powder after bathing for roughly 40 years and endured major surgery and many rounds of chemotherapy. The company says it will appeal.
This verdict lands amid a long, messy legal saga: tens of thousands of plaintiffs have filed claims, earlier juries have handed down multi‑hundred‑million and even multibillion‑dollar awards, and bankruptcy maneuvers meant to corral settlements have repeatedly been rejected by federal judges.
Why this case still matters
On its face, $40 million is a notable judgment but not an industry‑ending sum for a company the size of Johnson & Johnson. What makes each talc trial consequential is that juries — case by case — are weighing corporate conduct, internal research and consumer warnings against scientific debate. In this trial, jurors found the company knew risks and failed to warn consumers, a narrative the plaintiffs’ attorneys hammered in closing.
From the company’s point of view, those jury findings run counter to its long‑standing position. Erik Haas, J&J’s worldwide vice president of litigation, called the verdict “aberrant” and noted the company has prevailed in many ovarian cancer trials — saying it had won 16 of 17 previously tried ovarian cases, and promising to seek reversal on appeal. The company also points to regulatory and scientific reviews that, in its view, do not support a causal link between cosmetic talc and ovarian cancer.
Bigger picture: dozens of litigation threads
This case is one thread in a sprawling legal tapestry. More than 67,000 plaintiffs have pursued claims tied to talc products, most alleging ovarian cancer and a smaller number alleging mesothelioma linked to asbestos contamination. J&J stopped selling talc‑based baby powder in the U.S. in 2020, replacing it with a cornstarch formula, and later discontinued talc‑based powder worldwide amid plunging sales and mounting legal pressure.
The company’s bankruptcy strategy to resolve thousands of cases — a proposed $9 billion plan — was tossed out by a federal judge earlier this year, forcing many claims back into state courts. Recent high‑profile rulings include an October multimillion verdict in a mesothelioma case that exceeded $900 million.
What the lawyers told jurors
Plaintiffs’ attorneys argued the company had long suspected or known of dangers associated with talc and buried evidence instead of warning buyers. An attorney who addressed jurors in this trial said J&J had known concerns about talc’s safety as far back as the 1960s.
J&J’s defense stressed that no major U.S. health authority has concluded talc causes ovarian cancer and argued the plaintiffs lacked the scientific proof to tie their diagnoses to powder use. Allison Brown, representing J&J in court, told jurors the only people asserting talc caused the plaintiffs’ cancers were their lawyers.
What happens now
Expect an appeal. The company has signaled it will challenge both the liability findings and damages. Even if J&J ultimately overturns or trims some jury awards on appeal, these trials continue to shape settlements, corporate behavior, and public perception.
For the women in this case, however, the legal arguments are less abstract. Their testimony — about surgeries, chemotherapy and years of product use — is the human detail that jurors heard up close. Regardless of how the appeals play out, the verdict keeps alive the broader question that has shadowed the brand for years: how companies account for product risks as science, law and consumers collide.