The History of Johnson & Johnson Talc Litigation

The litigation surrounding Johnson & Johnson’s (J&J) talc-based products, primarily Baby Powder, represents one of the most significant and protracted mass tort cases in recent history. Allegations that these products caused ovarian cancer and mesothelioma due to asbestos contamination have led to tens of thousands of lawsuits, a mix of high-stakes jury trials, substantial verdicts, controversial bankruptcy strategies, and ongoing legal complexities. This article provides a comprehensive history of the J&J talc litigation, tracing its key developments, legal maneuvers, and the challenges faced by both the company and the claimants.

For insights into effective case management strategies applicable to complex litigations like this, see our article on Complex Case Management Lessons from the J&J Talc Litigation.

The foundation of the J&J talc litigation lies in allegations that the company’s talc-based products, most notably Baby Powder and Shower to Shower, contained asbestos fibers. Plaintiffs contend that decades of use of these products led to the development of serious cancers, including ovarian cancer in women and mesothelioma, a rare cancer usually linked to asbestos exposure. These claims often cite internal documents allegedly showing that J&J was aware of potential contamination as early as the 1970s but failed to warn consumers. The scientific basis for these claims has been a central point of contention throughout the litigation, with plaintiffs presenting expert testimony linking talc and asbestos to cancer, while J&J has consistently argued that its products were safe and that the plaintiffs’ scientific evidence is flawed.

The talc litigation gained significant public attention with early jury verdicts against J&J. One notable case was the landmark 2018 verdict in St. Louis, Missouri, where a jury initially awarded $4.69 billion to 22 women who claimed J&J’s talc products caused their ovarian cancer. While this verdict was later reduced on appeal to $2.12 billion, it signaled a potential turning point and prompted thousands more plaintiffs to come forward. These early trials often involved the presentation of internal J&J documents and expert testimony regarding the presence of asbestos in talc and its potential carcinogenic effects. However, J&J also secured defense verdicts in some early cases, highlighting the ongoing battle over scientific evidence and causation.

As the J&J talc litigation progresses and potential settlements arise, efficient and expert settlement administration becomes crucial. Verus offers comprehensive services to manage all aspects of settlement processes, ensuring accuracy, fairness, and timely distribution of funds.

Faced with mounting liabilities from the tens of thousands of pending lawsuits, Johnson & Johnson implemented a controversial legal maneuver known as the “Texas two-step.” This strategy involved creating a new subsidiary, LTL Management LLC, in Texas, to which J&J transferred all of its talc-related liabilities. Subsequently, LTL Management filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in North Carolina, a venue initially perceived as more favorable for such proceedings. The aim of this strategy was to consolidate the numerous claims and potentially resolve them more efficiently through a bankruptcy trust, offering a pathway to settle the massive litigation.

J&J’s “Texas two-step” strategy has faced significant legal challenges. The bankruptcy filings of LTL Management in New Jersey (after a change of venue) were twice dismissed by U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Michael Kaplan, a decision upheld by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. The primary reason for these dismissals was the court’s finding that LTL was not in genuine “financial distress,” a key requirement for a good faith bankruptcy filing. The court emphasized J&J’s financial strength and its commitment to funding LTL’s obligations. These dismissals were viewed as significant setbacks for J&J’s strategy to resolve the talc litigation through bankruptcy.

Despite the bankruptcy setbacks, the underlying talc litigation continues in various state and federal courts. J&J has pursued appeals of unfavorable verdicts, sometimes successfully. For instance, the Missouri Court of Appeals reduced the damages in the significant St. Louis verdict but upheld the finding that J&J’s products caused the plaintiffs’ injuries. The U.S. Supreme Court also declined to hear J&J’s appeal in a case brought by the Mississippi attorney general alleging failure to warn consumers about potential links between talc and ovarian cancer. These ongoing legal battles highlight the dynamic and unresolved nature of the litigation.

J&J’s legal strategies, particularly the “Texas two-step” bankruptcy, have drawn considerable scrutiny and criticism from legal experts, lawmakers, and victim advocates. Critics argue that this maneuver allows a financially healthy company to evade full accountability for its liabilities. There have been discussions about potential legislative measures to limit the use of such divisive mergers in mass tort cases. Furthermore, allegations that J&J concealed potential risks associated with its talc products for decades have fueled public outrage and legal challenges.

While initially resistant to broad settlements, J&J has entered into some agreements to resolve portions of the talc litigation. These include a significant settlement with numerous states over allegations of misleading marketing practices regarding the safety of its talc products and some individual and smaller group settlements.

However, a comprehensive global settlement that would resolve all outstanding claims has remained elusive, largely due to the complexities of the litigation and the differing perspectives on the value of the claims.

For law firms requiring experienced guidance in the complexities of mass tort settlement administration, Verus provides strategic settlement consulting services designed to help you and other stakeholders navigate these intricate processes and achieve optimal outcomes.

In 2020, Johnson & Johnson ceased the sale of its talc-based Baby Powder in the United States and Canada, citing declining sales and “misinformation” about the product’s safety. This decision, while framed as a market-driven move, was widely interpreted as a response to the mounting pressure from the litigation.

Looking ahead, the future of the Johnson & Johnson talc litigation remains highly uncertain, with several potential pathways and ongoing challenges:

• Further Bankruptcy Strategies: J&J may explore additional bankruptcy filings, potentially in different jurisdictions, in an attempt to consolidate and resolve the outstanding claims. The success and legal challenges to these strategies will continue to shape the litigation’s trajectory.
• Continued Defense in Trials and Appeals: Despite bankruptcy maneuvers, J&J will likely continue to defend itself in the numerous individual lawsuits that proceed through state and federal court systems, as well as pursue appeals of unfavorable verdicts.
• Evolving Settlement Landscape: While a comprehensive global settlement has been elusive, the possibility of further partial settlements or a broader resolution agreement remains on the table, influenced by ongoing litigation outcomes and strategic negotiations.

The ultimate resolution of this extensive litigation will likely involve a complex interplay of these factors, with legal rulings, settlement negotiations, and evolving corporate strategies all playing significant roles.

The sheer scale and complexity of the J&J talc litigation underscore the indispensable role of sophisticated litigation support and claims management services. Managing tens of thousands of individual claims across multiple jurisdictions, handling voluminous discovery, coordinating with numerous law firms, and ensuring the accurate processing of potential settlements all require robust technological infrastructure, experienced personnel, and efficient workflows. 

Verus provides complex case management services with lessons learned from J&J litigation. Get assistance in areas such as centralized data management, claims administration, and analytics, enabling both plaintiffs’ and defense counsel to navigate the immense logistical and strategic challenges of this landmark case.