A Long Road Through The Courts The federal talc multidistrict litigation was established in the District of New Jersey in 2016. Plaintiffs alleged that Johnson’ s Baby Powder and other talc-based products caused cancers, including ovarian cancer and mesothelioma, and that Johnson & Johnson failed to adequately warn consumers. Since 2016, the case against talcum powder has gotten stronger.
Not only has the U. S. Food and Drug Administration( FDA) found that Johnson’ s Baby Powder contained asbestos, but also regulatory and scientific agencies like the International Agency for Research on Cancer( IARC) have found that talc likely causes ovarian cancer. Indeed, a 2024 study by NIH scientists found that long-term use of talc powder doubled the risk in women who used it consistently during their reproductive years. The company has consistently denied those allegations, maintaining that its talc products were safe and did not cause cancer.
Over the course of this litigation, Johnson & Johnson won a number of cases, while plaintiffs also secured significant verdicts, including a multibillion-dollar judgment involving 22 women with ovarian cancer claims. Along the way, plaintiffs have consistently beat back J & J’ s attempts to brand the evidence as unreliable.
Faced with growing evidence of carcinogenicity, Johnson & Johnson discontinued sales of talc-based Johnson’ s Baby Powder in the United States and Canada in 2020 and later announced that it would transition to a cornstarch-based formulation worldwide.
Beginning in 2021, the litigation took an unusual turn. Johnson & Johnson and its subsidiaries made three attempts to resolve talc liabilities through Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings. Each of these efforts failed. In March 2025, a bankruptcy court in Texas rejected the company’ s third proposed bankruptcy resolution, and Johnson & Johnson elected not to appeal. Litigation then resumed in the federal MDL and state courts.
That history is one reason the new agreement carries significance beyond its dollar value, according to Christopher Tisi, a shareholder at Levin Papantonio who serves on the Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee in MDL No. 2738.
“ The significance of this settlement is difficult to separate from the road it took to get here.
For years, these women and their
The Trial Lawyer 81