2/2/2026
Johnson and Johnson Talc Trial Opens in Philadelphia
A trial is currently underway in Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas against manufacturer Johnson & Johnson, one of 175 talc cases pending in Philadelphia against the pharmaceutical giant in which plaintiffs claim that the company’s flagship baby powder product was contaminated with asbestos, causing ovarian cancer. The current lawsuit is the first to proceed since J&J spun off its talc unit and unsuccessfully attempted three times to file Chapter 11 bankruptcy.
The case was filed by Gayle Emerson, who alleged that her daily use of J&J baby powder for nearly 50 years caused her to develop ovarian cancer. Counsel for Ms. Emerson argues that J&J was aware that its baby powder was contaminated but failed to warn consumers and continued to market its product despite knowing that the talc, mined in Vermont, Italy and China was mined from ground known to be crossed with veins of asbestos ore.
Johnson and Johnson maintains that its product is not contaminated and does not cause ovarian cancer. Counsel for the company argues that plaintiff’s cancer was more likely caused by other factors given her medical history, including her age, obesity and use of a douche product for nearly the same length of time as her powder use.
The trial is expected to last three weeks. The only other talc trial held in Philadelphia in 2021 resulted in a defense verdict for J&J. A third trial is scheduled for April.
In related news, retired U.S. District Judge Freda Wolfson, serving as special master, denied most of 17 motions filed and recommended that most of the 39 experts identified by both the plaintiffs and the defendant J&J in the federal talc MDL should be permitted to testify. Presiding Judge Michael Shipp, who took over the MDL in 2023 after Judge Wolfson retired had allowed both sides to reargue the issue of experts in light of the amendment to Federal Rule of Evidence 702 which created a path for the company to challenge the reliability of the scientific evidence being offered by the plaintiffs. In a 639-page report Judge Wolfson concluded that the experts for the plaintiffs should be permitted to testify regarding the link between J&J’s baby powder product and the plaintiffs developing ovarian cancer.
12/22/2025
Baltimore Jury Orders $1.5 Billion Verdict in Johnson & Johnson Talc Case
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.
