Johnson & Johnson is defending itself on three major legal fronts heading into 2026: tens of thousands of talcum powder cancer claims consolidated in New Jersey federal court, a $442 million antitrust judgment against its Biosense Webster medical device unit, and a failed challenge to the federal government’s 340B drug pricing program. This Johnson & Johnson lawsuit update walks through where each case stands, what the courts have decided so far, and what is still ahead.
Talcum Powder Cancer Litigation
Roughly 68,000 cases remain pending in a federal multidistrict litigation in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey before Judge Michael A. Shipp.1Drugwatch. Talcum Powder Lawsuits Plaintiffs allege that J&J’s talc-based baby powder was contaminated with asbestos, that the company concealed the risk for decades, and that use of the product caused ovarian cancer or mesothelioma.
Three Failed Bankruptcy Filings
J&J tried three times to route its talc liabilities into subsidiary bankruptcy proceedings, a maneuver often called the “Texas Two-Step.” All three failed. The most recent involved a subsidiary called Red River Talc, which a Texas bankruptcy judge rejected in March 2025 after finding the pre-filing vote process “fundamentally flawed and rushed.”2Lawsuit Information Center. Talcum Powder Lawsuits and Settlements J&J declined to appeal, withdrew an approximately $7 billion settlement offer, and said it would defend the claims in court.1Drugwatch. Talcum Powder Lawsuits
Recent Verdicts
Once the bankruptcy stays lifted, jury losses resumed. In December 2025, a Baltimore jury awarded Cherie Craft, a 59-year-old Maryland woman with peritoneal mesothelioma, more than $1.5 billion, split between $59.84 million in compensatory damages and $1.5 billion in punitive damages against J&J and its subsidiary Pecos River Talc. J&J called the verdict “egregious and patently unconstitutional” and said it would appeal immediately.3Fierce Pharma. Baltimore Jury Orders J&J to Pay $1.5B, Largest-Ever Award to Talc Plaintiff
A Florida jury awarded $20 million in a mesothelioma case in November 2025, and a Philadelphia jury awarded $250,000 in an ovarian cancer case in February 2026.2Lawsuit Information Center. Talcum Powder Lawsuits and Settlements In March 2026, a California judge overturned a $950 million punitive damages award in a mesothelioma case but let $16 million in compensatory damages stand.4Miller & Zois. Talcum Powder Lawsuits
Expert Testimony Ruling
In January 2026, retired U.S. District Judge Freda Wolfson, serving as a court-appointed special master, issued a 658-page report recommending that plaintiffs be permitted to present expert testimony linking genital talc use to ovarian cancer. Wolfson wrote that the underlying epidemiological studies “demonstrate a positive, statistically significant association” and that plaintiffs’ experts had applied “reliable methodologies.” She also allowed J&J’s defense experts to testify and excluded certain plaintiff theories, such as the claim that inhaled talc migrates to the ovaries.5Reuters. US Judge Allows Experts to Testify That Talc Products Cause Cancer in J&J Cases
J&J’s legal chief, Erik Haas, called the ruling “erroneous” and said the company would challenge it before Judge Shipp.6Fierce Pharma. J&J Talc Litigation: NJ Court Recommends Allowing Expert Testimony
Bellwether Trial and Mediation
The first federal bellwether case, Judkins v. Johnson & Johnson, was selected in July 2025 and involves an ovarian cancer claim by a New Hampshire plaintiff. No trial start date has been publicly confirmed.1Drugwatch. Talcum Powder Lawsuits
Judge Shipp appointed mediator Fouad Kurdi in March 2026 to oversee settlement talks, ordering both sides to send representatives with full settlement authority. A session was held in late April 2026. According to reporting, a global deal is not imminent, though the court considers it a “realistic possibility.” J&J has publicly resisted the premise that a settlement is needed and continues to say it prefers to litigate.4Miller & Zois. Talcum Powder Lawsuits
Beasley Allen Disqualified
In March 2026, U.S. Magistrate Judge Rukhsanah Singh disqualified the Beasley Allen firm from representing about 5,500 plaintiffs in the MDL and removed it from the litigation’s steering committee. The court found that Beasley Allen principal Andy Birchfield violated ethics rules by working with James Conlan, a former outside attorney for J&J who possessed confidential information about the company’s bankruptcy strategy. Judge Singh wrote that allowing the firm to continue would “taint proceedings going forward.” The firm, which said it had put roughly 50,000 hours into about 11,500 cases nationwide, is appealing both this ruling and an earlier state court disqualification in New Jersey.7Bloomberg Law. Beasley Allen Disqualified From Nationwide J&J Talc Litigation
Lancet Retraction
The Lancet retracted a 1977 unsigned commentary that had concluded there was “no reason to believe that normal consumer exposure to cosmetic talc” led to cancer. Researchers David Rosner and Gerald Markowitz found that the commentary was written by Francis J.C. Roe, a cancer researcher then working as a paid J&J consultant, and that Roe never disclosed the relationship. Documents showed Roe shared an advance draft with a J&J executive and incorporated the company’s feedback before publication. According to the researchers, defense attorneys had cited the editorial “four or five times in the last few years” to argue the medical field did not historically view asbestos in talc as dangerous. J&J expressed “strong disagreement” with the retraction, calling it part of “ongoing and underhanded litigation tactics.”8Retraction Watch. Lancet Retraction of Commentary on Talc Powder
Biosense Webster Antitrust Judgment
J&J’s medical device subsidiary Biosense Webster was hit with a $442 million antitrust judgment in 2025. Innovative Health LLC, a medical device reprocessor, sued in 2019 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, alleging Biosense Webster illegally maintained a monopoly over cardiac mapping catheters used with its Carto 3 system.9Kellogg Hansen. Kellogg Hansen Leads $147 Million Antitrust Trial Victory for Innovative Health
The core allegation involved “tying.” Innovative Health said Biosense Webster conditioned its free clinical support services on hospitals buying only new Biosense Webster catheters, effectively refusing to support hospitals that used lower-cost FDA-cleared reprocessed alternatives. The company also allegedly used hardware-based blocking technology to keep reprocessed catheters from working with the Carto 3 system.9Kellogg Hansen. Kellogg Hansen Leads $147 Million Antitrust Trial Victory for Innovative Health
On May 16, 2025, after a trial before Judge James V. Selna, a jury unanimously found Biosense Webster violated the Sherman Act and California’s Cartwright Act and awarded Innovative Health approximately $147.4 million. Judge Selna trebled the amount to $442.2 million under federal and state antitrust statutes and entered final judgment on June 5, 2025.10Cardiovascular Business. Johnson & Johnson MedTech $442M Lawsuit Innovative Health
Judge Selna also issued a permanent injunction barring Biosense Webster from tying clinical support to catheter purchases, discriminating against hospitals that use competitors’ reprocessed devices, deploying “kill switch” technology to disable reprocessed catheters, and hoarding used catheters to keep competitors from obtaining reprocessing materials.1124×7 Magazine. Federal Court Bars Johnson & Johnson Unit From Blocking Device Reprocessing The company must file biannual compliance reports with the court and notify its customers and sales staff of the injunction’s terms.12AMDR. Order Regarding Motion for Permanent Injunction Modifications
Biosense Webster appealed to the Ninth Circuit on September 25, 2025, filed its opening brief in February 2026, and Innovative Health filed its answering brief in May 2026 urging the court to uphold the verdict.13CourtListener. Innovative Health LLC v. Biosense Webster Inc., Ninth Circuit
340B Drug Pricing Challenge
J&J also lost its challenge to the federal 340B Drug Pricing Program, which requires drugmakers to sell discounted drugs to safety-net hospitals. In November 2024, J&J sued the Department of Health and Human Services in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, arguing it should be allowed to move from upfront discounts to a rebate-based model for drugs including Stelara and Xarelto.14Healthcare Dive. Hospitals Intervene in 340B J&J Lawsuit Against HRSA
Safety-net hospitals intervened as defendants. The group 340B Health and two hospitals argued the rebate model would force hospitals to pay full price upfront and absorb the risk of denied claims. UMass Memorial Medical Center estimated the change would cost it $24 million a year.14Healthcare Dive. Hospitals Intervene in 340B J&J Lawsuit Against HRSA
On June 27, 2025, Judge Rudolph Contreras ruled against J&J, finding that the Health Resources and Services Administration had clear statutory authority to require prior approval of any rebate model. The judge wrote that he “struggles to understand the necessity of J&J’s rebate model.”15America’s Essential Hospitals. Judge Rejects J&J 340B Rebate Lawsuit, Mandates HHS Preapproval The decision followed a similar May 2025 ruling in cases brought by five other drugmakers.16American Hospital Association. Judge Rules Against J&J, HHS, and 340B Hospitals in Rebate Model Case
A Note on Henry Ford Health
Health lawsuit trackers sometimes group the Henry Ford Health website-tracking settlement alongside these J&J cases because both involve major healthcare defendants. Henry Ford Health is not a J&J subsidiary, and the $12.2 million McClain v. Henry Ford Health settlement over website tracking pixels is a separate Michigan case with no connection to Johnson & Johnson.17HIPAA Journal. Henry Ford Health Tracking Technology Settlement