The Johnson & Johnson talcum powder lawsuit docket now holds more than 67,000 pending cases, most alleging the company’s baby powder caused ovarian cancer or mesothelioma. After three failed attempts to route the claims through bankruptcy, J&J is defending cases one at a time, and recent juries have handed down verdicts topping a billion dollars. As of May 2026, 67,623 lawsuits sit in the federal multidistrict litigation (MDL No. 2738) before Judge Michael A. Shipp in the District of New Jersey.1Motley Rice. Talcum Powder Lawsuit J&J says it has settled 95% of mesothelioma cases but still faces more than 60,000 ovarian cancer claims, and has spent roughly $1 billion on legal fees so far.2Asbestos.com. Johnson & Johnson
What the Lawsuits Allege
Plaintiffs argue that J&J knew for decades its talc sometimes contained asbestos and failed to warn consumers. A 2018 Reuters investigation traced internal documents showing that consulting lab reports in 1957 and 1958 identified “fibrous” and “needle-like” tremolite, a form of asbestos, in J&J’s Italian talc supply. A 1969 memo from a J&J executive called tremolite “historically… bad,” and a company physician warned that keeping it to a minimum was “prudent” to avoid litigation.3Reuters. Johnson & Johnson Knew for Decades That Asbestos Lurked in Its Baby Powder
Between 1972 and 1975, three separate laboratories found asbestos in J&J’s talc, with one report describing contamination as “rather high.” In a 1976 submission to the FDA, J&J reported that no asbestos had been detected in samples tested in 1972 and 1973 but omitted the unfavorable results from other labs. A New Jersey Superior Court judge later called this “a form of a misrepresentation by omission.”3Reuters. Johnson & Johnson Knew for Decades That Asbestos Lurked in Its Baby Powder
J&J has consistently maintained that its baby powder is safe, contains no asbestos, and does not cause cancer, pointing to a 2009–2010 FDA survey that detected none and calling the litigation driven by “junk science.”4National Center for Biotechnology Information. A Review of Talc and Ovarian Cancer Litigation
Where the Science Stands
The scientific evidence linking talc to ovarian cancer is contested. Observational research suggests genital talc use increases ovarian cancer risk by roughly 30%, but those studies rely on patient-reported use and carry the usual limits of recall bias and confounding.5National Center for Research Resources. Talc and Ovarian Cancer
The connection between asbestos-contaminated talc and mesothelioma sits on firmer ground. Asbestos is a Group 1 carcinogen, and talc deposits are often located near asbestos deposits, creating contamination risk during mining. In 2019, the FDA itself found asbestos in a bottle of J&J baby powder.5National Center for Research Resources. Talc and Ovarian Cancer
In July 2024, the International Agency for Research on Cancer upgraded its classification of talc from “possibly carcinogenic” to “probably carcinogenic to humans,” its second-highest certainty level. The decision cited limited human evidence of ovarian cancer, sufficient evidence of cancer in animal studies, and strong mechanistic evidence from lab experiments.6IARC/WHO. IARC Monographs Evaluate the Carcinogenicity of Talc and Acrylonitrile Experts noted the reclassification identifies hazard potential rather than measuring real-world risk at specific exposure levels.7Science Media Centre. Expert Reaction to IARC Monographs Evaluating the Carcinogenicity of Talc
The Failed Bankruptcy Strategy
In October 2021, J&J executed a maneuver known as the “Texas two-step.” Using Texas corporate law, it split its consumer subsidiary in a divisive merger. Operating assets went to a new entity called “New Consumer,” and all talc-related liabilities went to a shell called LTL Management. Two days later, LTL filed for Chapter 11 in North Carolina, backed by a J&J funding agreement worth up to $61.5 billion. The filing automatically paused all talc lawsuits, blocking cancer victims from going to trial.8University of Chicago Business Law Review. Court Rejects Johnson & Johnson’s Use of the Texas Two-Step
On January 30, 2023, the Third Circuit dismissed the case, holding that LTL was not in financial distress given its access to $61.5 billion. Judge Ambro wrote that “good intentions” like protecting the J&J brand or resolving litigation comprehensively were not enough to justify bankruptcy.9Dentons. Third Circuit Dismisses LTL Mass Tort Bankruptcy
J&J tried again. It reduced LTL’s funding to about $30 billion and filed a second Chapter 11. On June 25, 2024, the Third Circuit again affirmed dismissal, comparing LTL’s own “worst-case” estimate of $21 billion in lifetime talc costs against $22.3 billion in available assets and finding no financial distress.10Goldberg Segalla. Third Circuit Affirms Bankruptcy Court’s Order Dismissing LTL Management’s Second Chapter 11 Petition
The third attempt came in September 2024 through a new subsidiary called Red River Talc LLC, which filed in the Southern District of Texas. J&J said it had support from more than 75% of claimants for a settlement valued at roughly $8 billion, paid over 25 years.11Johnson & Johnson. Johnson & Johnson Announces Subsidiary Red River Talc LLC Has Filed a Voluntary Prepackaged Chapter 11 Case
On March 31, 2025, Judge Christopher Lopez issued a 57-page opinion denying confirmation and dismissing the case. He found the voting process fatally flawed: of more than 90,000 votes cast, “at least half of them cannot count.” Irregularities included lawyers voting for clients without proper authorization, improper vote-switching after side deals, and cancer patients being given as little as two business days and a weekend to respond to mailings. The plan’s involuntary third-party releases for J&J itself also exceeded what bankruptcy law permits after the Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in Harrington v. Purdue Pharma. Judge Lopez wrote that there was “no real company or jobs to save here.” J&J said it would not appeal or refile.12Creditor Coalition. Red River Talc Finally Says Good-Bye to Bankruptcy13Bailey Glasser. BG Wins Dismissal of Johnson & Johnson Third Bankruptcy
Recent Trial Verdicts
With bankruptcy off the table, J&J now defends each case individually. Recent trials have produced some of the largest awards in the litigation’s history.
In December 2025, a Baltimore jury awarded Cherie Craft, a 59-year-old Maryland woman with peritoneal mesothelioma, $1.56 billion. The verdict included $59.8 million in compensatory damages and $1.5 billion in punitive damages, the largest talc award ever for a single plaintiff.14Fierce Pharma. Baltimore Jury Orders J&J to Pay $1.5B, Largest Ever Award to Talc Plaintiff
In October 2025, a Los Angeles jury found J&J 100% responsible for the mesothelioma death of Mae K. Moore and awarded $966 million, including $950 million in punitive damages. In March 2026, Judge Ruth Kwan overturned the punitive portion, ruling that plaintiffs had not clearly established J&J knew about asbestos in its products and “failed to act.” The $16 million compensatory award remained intact, and both sides said they plan to appeal.15Asbestos.com. Judge Disagrees With Jury, Overturns $950M J&J Punitive Award
Other recent verdicts include $65.5 million from a Minnesota jury in December 2025 (Carley v. Johnson & Johnson) and more than $42 million from a Boston jury in July 2025 (Lovell v. Johnson & Johnson).16Mass Lawyers Weekly. J&J Talc Cancer Verdicts Asbestos Lawsuits
J&J has not lost every case. In January 2025, a Pittsburgh jury returned a defense verdict on causation, though the same jury still awarded $22 million in punitive damages based on the company’s conduct.17TruLaw. Johnson and Johnson Talcum Powder Lawsuit The company has signaled it will aggressively appeal large punitive awards, arguing they violate constitutional due process limits.
The pattern is set by an earlier case. On July 12, 2018, a St. Louis jury awarded 22 women $4.69 billion in Ingham v. Johnson & Johnson, the first case in which plaintiffs successfully argued that asbestos-contaminated baby powder caused their ovarian cancer. The Missouri Court of Appeals later reduced the award to $2.11 billion but upheld the finding that J&J had disregarded consumer safety and failed to warn about possible asbestos.18ClassAction.org. Talcum Powder Cancer Lawsuit19Sokolove Law. Talcum Powder Settlements On June 1, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear J&J’s appeal, and the reduced judgment stood.20Asbestos.com. Johnson & Johnson Supreme Court Talc
The $700 Million Multistate Settlement
On June 10, 2024, J&J reached a $700 million settlement with 42 states and the District of Columbia to resolve claims of deceptive marketing of its talc products. The agreement bars J&J from future manufacture, marketing, promotion, sale, and distribution of talc-based products. The coalition was led by the attorneys general of North Carolina and California.21North Carolina Department of Justice. Attorney General Josh Stein Leads 43 Bipartisan Attorneys General in Reaching $700 Million Talc Settlement22California Office of the Attorney General. Attorney General Bonta Secures $700 Million Settlement With Johnson & Johnson That resolution addressed state consumer-protection claims and does not release individual personal injury cases.
Product Discontinuation and Kenvue
J&J stopped selling talc-based baby powder in the United States and Canada in May 2020, attributing the decision to declining demand and what it called “misinformation” and litigation advertising, not safety. A cornstarch version remained available.23Johnson & Johnson. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Health Announces Discontinuation of Talc-Based Johnson’s Baby Powder in U.S. and Canada In August 2022, the company announced it would end worldwide sales of talc-based baby powder in 2023 and transition the entire global line to cornstarch, again framing it as a commercial decision.24Johnson & Johnson. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Health to Transition Global Baby Powder Portfolio to Cornstarch
In 2023, J&J spun off its consumer health division as a separate public company called Kenvue, which now owns brands like Band-Aid and Listerine. Under the separation agreement, J&J retained all talc-related liabilities, and all liabilities of LTL Management were classified as “J&J Retained Liabilities.” Kenvue has no exposure to talc claims.25SEC. J&J/Kenvue Separation Agreement26Reuters. J&J’s Consumer Unit Named in Talcum Powder Cancer Claims
Where the Litigation Goes From Here
With no global settlement in place and the bankruptcy route closed, J&J faces what could be years of individual trials. Bloomberg Intelligence analysts have estimated the ultimate cost to resolve all lawsuits could reach $11 billion. After the third bankruptcy dismissal, J&J reported a 17% surge in new talc filings.19Sokolove Law. Talcum Powder Settlements
On the regulatory side, the FDA proposed standardized asbestos testing requirements for cosmetic talc in December 2024, mandating Polarized Light Microscopy and Transmission Electron Microscopy. The proposal was required by the Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act of 2022.27FDA. FDA Issues Proposed Rule on Testing Methods for Detecting and Identifying Asbestos in Talc-Containing Cosmetic Products The FDA withdrew the proposal in November 2025 after industry stakeholders raised concerns about false positives and inconsistent definitions of asbestos across federal agencies, and said it will reissue the rule without setting a timeline.28Wiley. FDA Withdraws Standardized Asbestos Testing Proposal for Talc-Containing Cosmetics