A Baltimore City jury has delivered a significant verdict in ongoing talc litigation, ordering Johnson & Johnson and related entities to pay more than $1.5 billion to a plaintiff who alleged long-term exposure to asbestos contaminated talc products caused her cancer.
On December 22, jurors in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City found Johnson & Johnson, two of its subsidiaries, and spinoff Kenvue liable for failing to warn the plaintiff, Cherie Craft, that the company’s talc-based baby powder contained asbestos. Craft alleged that decades of exposure to these products led to her diagnosis of peritoneal mesothelioma, a rare and aggressive cancer commonly associated with asbestos exposure.
Key Takeaways from the Verdict
The jury concluded that Johnson & Johnson and its related entities failed to provide adequate warnings despite knowledge of asbestos risks associated with talc. The verdict reinforces several trends shaping the talc litigation landscape:
- Jury skepticism of asbestos risk disclosures
Jurors continue to scrutinize historical product testing, corporate knowledge, and internal communications related to asbestos contamination in consumer products. - Expanded liability across corporate entities
In addition to Johnson & Johnson and its subsidiaries, liability extended to Kenvue, underscoring the complexity of corporate structures and spinoffs in mass tort litigation. - Continued momentum despite bankruptcy strategies
This verdict follows multiple unsuccessful attempts by Johnson & Johnson to resolve talc claims through bankruptcy proceedings, signaling that jury trials remain a critical pressure point in global settlement negotiations.
Implications for Talc and Asbestos Litigation
This decision adds to a growing body of high-value verdicts that may influence settlement dynamics across the broader talc docket. For plaintiff firms, the case highlights the importance of:
- Detailed exposure histories spanning decades.
- Medical documentation tying asbestos exposure to specific disease pathways.
- Robust product identification and usage timelines
- Clear, well-organized evidentiary presentation for juries
For defendants and settlement administrators, the ruling underscores the operational challenges of managing large claimant populations, evaluating claim validity, and forecasting financial exposure as cases move toward resolution.
Looking Ahead
As talc litigation continues to evolve, verdicts like this one will accelerate discussions around global resolution frameworks, compensation matrices, and claim validation standards. Courts, counsel, and claims administrators alike are facing increased pressure to manage complexity at scale while maintaining transparency and consistency.
At Verus, we collaborate with firms navigating large-scale asbestos and talc matters by supporting claimant intake, data validation, medical audits, analytics, and settlement administration, helping legal teams prepare for both trial and resolution-driven outcomes.
If you’d like to discuss how data-driven case management and analytics can support your talc or asbestos litigation strategy, we welcome the conversation.
