The ongoing multidistrict litigation (MDL) against Johnson & Johnson (J&J) over its talcum-based products is among the most well-known and closely followed medical mass torts.
The MDL centers on two pivotal products: Johnson & Johnson's Baby Powder and Shower-to-Shower. Plaintiffs allege that the talc in both products was contaminated with asbestos, leading to various cancers. While ovarian cancer accounts for the majority of cases, claims also include mesothelioma, endometrial cancer, and other gynecological cancers.
J&J's Baby Powder, in particular, has been a cornerstone of the company’s carefully crafted image as a caring brand, even referred to as “a sacred cow” in a 2003 internal email. It’s been a household name for decades, heavily marketed as safe for infants and adults.
Now, it's the focal of one of the largest medical mass torts in US history.
Centralized in the US District Court for the District of New Jersey, the MDL encompasses more than 58,000 lawsuits.
Here’s a closer look at how this litigation began and where things stand today.
History of the J&J talc MDL
Johnson & Johnson first introduced its baby powder in 1894, and it quickly became the premier baby powder on the US market. The powder’s primary ingredient, talc, was known for its softness and moisture-absorbing qualities.
According to an article by The New Yorker, the product was so popular that J&J even purchased its own talc mines to secure and control its supply. However, the downside of talc is that it can become contaminated with asbestos during the mining process.
But in 2009, lawsuits against the company began to mount. Plaintiffs alleged that prolonged use of the company’s talc-based products caused ovarian cancer.
A 2018 Reuters investigation uncovered internal reports suggesting that J&J was aware as early as 1957 of asbestos contamination in its talc. Despite this, the company continued selling the product without providing adequate warnings.
In 1976, the US Food and Drug Administration started to implement limits on asbestos in cosmetic talc products. However, the Reuters investigation revealed that J&J withheld crucial test results to keep its talc-based products on the market.
According to the investigation:
“J&J didn’t tell the FDA that at least three tests by three different labs from 1972 to 1975 had found asbestos in its talc – in one case at levels reported as “rather high.”
The investigation also revealed a 2013 edited draft of a statement for the “Safety & Care Commitment” page of J&J’s website, acknowledging the possibility that the company’s talc could have been tainted with asbestos in the past.
By 2013, J&J faced several small verdicts favoring plaintiffs. However, a turning point came in 2016 when a California jury awarded $70 million to Deborah Giannecchini, who attributed her ovarian cancer to years of using J&J’s Baby Powder. Giannecchini’s attorneys presented evidence linking talc use to her diagnosis, alleging J&J had failed to warn consumers about the risks.
In 2018, a Missouri jury awarded $4.69 billion to 22 women who alleged J&J products caused their ovarian cancer. This verdict was one of the largest product liability awards in US history. The sheer scale of the damages emphasized the gravity of the allegations and motivated thousands more plaintiffs to come forward.
Eventually, the company pulled its talc-based baby powder from the North American market in 2020, claiming demand was decreasing and there was “misinformation around the safety of the product.” In 2022, the company proceeded to discontinue the product internationally and replaced talc in all of its talc-based products with cornstarch.
By 2021, over 38,000 lawsuits had been filed, and J&J found itself confronting billions in potential liability.
The Texas Two-Step strategy
As financial stakes grew, J&J turned to a controversial legal maneuver known as the Texas Two-Step, a strategy companies use when facing bankruptcy. In these cases, a company creates a subsidiary through a corporate restructuring, transferring its liabilities, such as lawsuits, to the new business entity. The subsidiary then files for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, pausing litigation and potentially reducing the company’s financial exposure.
In 2021, the company created LTL Management LLC, and transferred all talc-related liabilities to this new entity. LTL Management then filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in The US Third Circuit Court of Appeals, halting the ongoing litigation and consolidating all claims into bankruptcy court.
This move was met with criticism. Plaintiffs argued that J&J, a financially healthy company, was using bankruptcy laws to shield itself from accountability. In January 2023, the court agreed and ruled that LTL’s bankruptcy filing was not made in good faith because J&J itself was not in financial distress.
In April 2023, J&J tried again to execute this same maneuver, this time in the US. Bankruptcy Court in New Jersey. The court dismissed this effort as well in July 2023.
Johnson and John talc lawsuit update: December 2024
In September 2024, J&J made a third attempt at resolving the litigation using the Texas Two-Step strategy. This time, the company created a new subsidiary, Red River Talc LLC, and filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the US Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas under Judge Christopher Lopez, despite some claimants preferences that the proceedings continue in New Jersey.
Why the decision to file in Texas? The state's favorable bankruptcy laws and judicial environment are often seen as more accommodating to corporate restructuring efforts.
Along with this filing, J&J upped its original settlement plan from $8 to $9 billion to be paid out over 25 years to resolve all current and future ovarian cancer talc claims. Judge Lopez is expected to approve or deny the settlement in January 2025.
While 83% of current claimants and the case's future claims representative support this, the US Department of Justice filed a motion to dismiss Red River Talc's bankruptcy case in October, describing it as a “textbook example of bad faith bankruptcy.” The motion argues that J&J’s use of bankruptcy is less about addressing harm equitably and more about protecting its bottom line.
Whether the court agrees remains to be seen.
In response, J&J reiterated that its bankruptcy approach is a legitimate method for resolving mass tort claims. The company maintains that the settlement is a fair and equitable solution, supported by the majority of claimants.
“The overwhelming support for the Plan demonstrates the Company’s extensive, good-faith efforts to resolve this litigation for the benefit of all stakeholders,” said Erik Haas, Worldwide Vice President of Litigation, Johnson & Johnson. “This Plan is fair and equitable to all parties and, therefore, should be expeditiously confirmed by the Bankruptcy Court.”
Even as J&J works to settle the existing claims, new lawsuits continue to be filed. In October 2024 alone, 146 new cases were added to the MDL, bringing the total number of pending lawsuits to 58,198.
What’s next for the J&J MDL?
The Johnson & Johnson talc MDL is more than just a legal battle; it’s a critical case that could reshape how the legal system handles mass torts involving consumer products. If J&J’s $9 billion settlement plan is approved, it could set a precedent for how corporations use bankruptcy to resolve large-scale litigation. On the other hand, if the courts reject the filing, J&J could face years of continued litigation and potentially even higher costs.
For legal professionals, this case offers an interesting study on the intersection of product liability, corporate strategy, and consumer protection. It also raises important ethical questions about the use of bankruptcy as a tool for managing mass torts.
One thing is certain: the effects of this MDL will ripple far beyond J&J, influencing how other companies approach liability for years to come.
Interested in working with us on your next product liability case? Contact us.
________________________
This might interest you:
Partner with Darrow to grow your practice
