The Johnson & Johnson talcum powder lawsuits are moving through the federal courts after the company’s third and final attempt to resolve them in bankruptcy was thrown out in April 2025. Roughly 67,000 to 68,000 cases are now pending in a New Jersey multidistrict litigation, juries have returned verdicts ranging from hundreds of thousands to more than a billion dollars, and a court-appointed mediator is working toward a global settlement that has not yet materialized.1Drugwatch. Talcum Powder Lawsuits
Where the Litigation Stands Now
The federal cases are consolidated in Multidistrict Litigation No. 2738 in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, before Judge Michael A. Shipp. With about 67,600 to 68,000 plaintiffs, it is the largest active multidistrict litigation in the country.1Drugwatch. Talcum Powder Lawsuits
Two things are happening in parallel. First, the MDL is preparing for bellwether trials, which test representative cases in front of juries to gauge how the broader inventory might resolve. The first federal bellwether, Carter Judkins v. Johnson & Johnson, is expected in the coming months. In January 2026, a special master recommended that plaintiffs be allowed to present expert testimony linking talcum powder to ovarian cancer, concluding that the scientific evidence supporting the association remains valid.1Drugwatch. Talcum Powder Lawsuits
Second, Judge Shipp appointed veteran mediator Fouad Kurdi to oversee settlement talks. Formal negotiations began in September 2025, and a mediation session took place in late April 2026. The court has required both sides to send representatives with full settlement authority. As of mid-2026, no deal is imminent, with the primary sticking point described as “arriving at a fair number.”2Miller & Zois. Talcum Powder Lawsuit
Why the Cases Are in Court and Not Bankruptcy
J&J tried three times to move its talc liability out of the tort system and into bankruptcy court, using a maneuver known as the “Texas two-step”: create a new subsidiary, transfer the liabilities to it, and put that subsidiary into Chapter 11.3University of Chicago Business Law Review. Court Rejects Johnson & Johnson’s Use of Texas Two-Step The first attempt, filed by an entity called LTL Management in October 2021, was dismissed by the Third Circuit in January 2023 on the grounds that LTL was not in genuine financial distress.4Dentons. Third Circuit Dismisses LTL Mass Tort Bankruptcy A second attempt was dismissed in July 2023.5Temple University 10-Q. Johnson & Johnson’s Talcum Two-Step
The third try came through a Texas-based entity called Red River Talc LLC in September 2024, with a proposed settlement trust of roughly $8 to $9 billion paid over 25 years. J&J claimed more than 75% of claimants supported the plan.6Drugwatch. Talcum Powder Settlements U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Christopher Lopez dismissed the case on April 1, 2025, in a 57-page opinion describing the voting process as a “calculated attempt to meet an arbitrary threshold of support by any means necessary—including coercion, manipulation, and misleading claimants.”7Fierce Pharma. After Dismissal of 3rd Bankruptcy Effort, J&J Says It Will Take Talc Cases to Court Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Harrington v. Purdue Pharma, Judge Lopez also ruled that J&J could not use the plan to obtain third-party liability releases for Kenvue and hundreds of retailers.8Beasley Allen. J&J’s Bankruptcy Bid Rejected: A Victory for Talc Claimants
Following the dismissal, J&J announced it would not appeal. It withdrew its settlement offer and said it did not intend to propose new ones, choosing instead to defend the remaining claims in court.1Drugwatch. Talcum Powder Lawsuits
Recent Verdicts
Since the bankruptcy freeze lifted, juries have returned significant awards in both ovarian cancer and mesothelioma cases.
The largest came in December 2025, when a Baltimore City Circuit Court jury ordered J&J to pay more than $1.5 billion to Cherie Craft, a woman diagnosed with peritoneal mesothelioma in January 2024. The award included $59.84 million in compensatory damages, $1 billion in punitive damages against J&J, and $500 million in punitive damages against J&J subsidiary Pecos River Talc. The jury also found Kenvue, J&J’s spun-off consumer health company, independently liable for failing to warn about asbestos.9The Daily Record. Baltimore Jury Awards Over $1.5 Billion in J&J Talc Verdict J&J called the verdict “egregious and patently unconstitutional” and said it would appeal.10WMAR-2 News. Baltimore Jury Orders Johnson & Johnson to Pay Woman $1.5 Billion
Other recent outcomes:
- In December 2025, a Los Angeles jury awarded $40 million to two long-term Baby Powder users diagnosed with ovarian cancer, the first plaintiff win in a talc-ovarian cancer case since 2021.11BeautyMatter. Jury Awards $40 Million in California Johnson & Johnson Talc Cancer Case
- In October 2025, a Los Angeles jury initially awarded $966 million to the family of Mae Moore, who died of mesothelioma. In March 2026, a judge struck the $950 million in punitive damages, leaving $16 million in compensatory damages intact.6Drugwatch. Talcum Powder Settlements
- In July 2025, a Boston jury awarded approximately $42 million to a mesothelioma patient.6Drugwatch. Talcum Powder Settlements
- In February 2026, a Philadelphia jury awarded $250,000 to the family of a woman who died of ovarian cancer after long-term use of J&J talc products.2Miller & Zois. Talcum Powder Lawsuit
J&J talc-related mesothelioma verdicts alone totaled over $2.5 billion in 2025. Roughly 95% of J&J’s mesothelioma lawsuits have reportedly been settled outside of court, though the total amounts and remaining active counts have not been publicly disclosed.12Sokolove Law. Johnson & Johnson Talcum Powder Lawsuits
What the Lawsuits Allege
The claims rest on two connected allegations: that J&J’s talc-based Baby Powder and Shower to Shower products were contaminated with asbestos, and that the company knew for decades and did not tell consumers or regulators. A 2018 Reuters investigation cited 56 internal J&J documents, with records going back to the 1950s. Internal company reports from 1957 and 1958 identified fibrous tremolite, a form of asbestos, in J&J’s Italian talc at concentrations up to about 3%. Between 1971 and 1975, at least three independent laboratories detected asbestos in J&J talc.13Reuters. J&J Knew for Decades That Asbestos Lurked in Its Baby Powder
A peer-reviewed analysis of 1,032 tests produced in litigation found that 686 revealed the presence of asbestos in cosmetic talcs between 1948 and 2017.14National Institutes of Health (PMC). Exposures to Asbestos-Contaminated Talcum Powder J&J maintains that its talc is and has been safe, arguing that reported contaminants were non-asbestiform minerals, background contamination, or results from tests on industrial-grade rather than cosmetic talc.13Reuters. J&J Knew for Decades That Asbestos Lurked in Its Baby Powder The company discontinued talc-based Baby Powder in the U.S. and Canada in May 2020,15Johnson & Johnson. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Health Announces Discontinuation of Talc-Based Baby Powder ended global sales in August 2022, and completed a switch to a cornstarch-based formula in 2023.16BCPP. Johnson and Johnson’s Toxic Talc: A Timeline Toward Victory
The $700 Million State Attorneys General Settlement
The $700 million J&J agreed to pay in June 2024 is a separate matter from the personal injury lawsuits and does not compensate individual cancer claimants. The consent judgment, filed in New York State Supreme Court on June 11, 2024, resolved consumer protection claims brought by 42 states and the District of Columbia alleging that J&J deceptively marketed talc products. Under the deal, J&J pays the $700 million to the states over three years and is permanently barred from manufacturing, selling, or distributing talcum powder-based baby or body powder in the United States.17New York Attorney General. Attorney General James Helps Secure $700 Million From Johnson & Johnson
Kenvue’s Role
When J&J spun off its consumer health division into Kenvue Inc. in 2023, a question followed: would the talc liability travel with it? Increasingly, the answer has been yes. Judge Shipp rejected J&J’s attempts to block plaintiffs from adding Kenvue as a defendant in the federal MDL, and the Baltimore jury that awarded $1.5 billion in December 2025 found Kenvue independently liable for failing to warn about asbestos in talc-based baby powder.18Verus LLC. J&J Bankruptcy, Texas Two-Step, and Talc Lawsuits Kenvue is also facing separate litigation in the United Kingdom, served in October 2025, involving fewer than 2,000 claimants. The company maintains that its cosmetic-grade talc “did not contain asbestos, and does not cause cancer.”19Kenvue. Statement on Behalf of Kenvue UK Limited on UK Talc Litigation
Who Can File and What Claims Are Worth
Eligibility generally requires a diagnosis of ovarian cancer, mesothelioma, or a related illness, together with a history of regular use of talc-based products. Statutes of limitations vary by state but typically run two to three years from the date of diagnosis or from the date a person discovers the connection between their illness and talcum powder.20Lanier Law Firm. Talc Ovarian Cancer Lawsuit Family members of those who have died from talc-related cancers may also be eligible to file wrongful death claims.21Nigh Goldenberg. Johnson & Johnson Talcum Powder Lawsuit
Financial outcomes are highly variable. Legal industry estimates put the average settlement value at roughly $500,000 per plaintiff, though actual amounts depend on the disease, the strength of the exposure evidence, and whether a case settles or goes to verdict.22ConsumerNotice.org. Talcum Powder Settlements Mesothelioma claims tend to command higher payouts, with averages estimated between $1 million and $1.4 million; ovarian cancer settlements typically range from $100,000 to $500,000.6Drugwatch. Talcum Powder Settlements These are estimates, not guarantees, and no global settlement structure is in place.
Two 2026 Developments Worth Knowing
On March 25, 2026, The Lancet retracted a 1977 unsigned commentary titled “Cosmetic talc powder” that had been cited for decades as evidence talc was safe. Columbia University public health historians Gerald Markowitz and David Rosner uncovered evidence that the piece was written by Francis J.C. Roe, a cancer researcher who was a paid, undisclosed J&J consultant, and that Roe shared an advance draft with J&J’s then-director of medical affairs, Gavin Hildick-Smith. The Lancet editors called the undisclosed conflict “a clear breach of publishing ethics.”23Retraction Watch. Lancet Retraction of Commentary on Talc Powder and Johnson & Johnson Industry Consultant24Columbia Mailman School of Public Health. Historians Unearth Conflict of Interest Prompting Retraction by Lancet Journal
Also in March 2026, U.S. Magistrate Judge Rukhsanah Singh disqualified the Beasley Allen law firm from the talc MDL and removed it as co-lead counsel, barring it from representing approximately 5,500 plaintiffs. The judge found that the firm violated New Jersey’s professional conduct rules by exchanging privileged settlement information with James Conlan, a lawyer who had previously represented J&J. Judge Singh wrote that “personal antagonism and poor choices render Beasley Allen’s continued leadership problematic.”25Legal Newsline. Beasley Allen Booted Off Talc Cases Affected plaintiffs will need new lead counsel in the MDL, though they remain claimants in the litigation.