A Los Angeles jury has ordered Johnson & Johnson (J&J) to pay 966 million dollars in a landmark cancer case linked to its talc-based baby powder. The decision represents one of the largest financial penalties ever imposed on the company and could shape future litigation against major pharmaceutical producers. The case was first reported by The WP Times, citing Reuters as the primary source of information.
The background of the case
The claim was filed by the family of May Moore, an 88-year-old California resident who died in 2021. Her relatives argued that long-term use of Johnson & Johnson’s talcum baby powder exposed her to asbestos fibres, which caused mesothelioma – a rare and aggressive cancer of the lungs and abdomen. The lawsuit sought compensation for pain, suffering, and loss of life.
After three weeks of hearings, the Los Angeles County jury ruled in favour of the plaintiffs, awarding 16 million dollars in compensatory damages and 950 million dollars in punitive damages. Legal experts note that the punitive portion may be reduced on appeal, as the US Supreme Court advises that such penalties generally should not exceed nine times the compensatory amount.
Company response and legal strategy
Johnson & Johnson announced it would appeal immediately, describing the verdict as unjust and unconstitutional. Vice-President for Litigation Erik Haas said the plaintiffs’ lawyers relied on speculative and unreliable scientific evidence. The company insists its products are safe, asbestos-free, and not linked to any form of cancer.
The corporation discontinued sales of its talc-based baby powder in 2020 in the United States, replacing it with a cornstarch formulation. Mesothelioma, however, has remained a focus of litigation because of its well-documented connection to asbestos exposure.
Attorney Trey Branham, representing the Moore family, stated after the verdict that he hopes the company will finally accept responsibility for what he called preventable and senseless deaths.
Growing number of lawsuits
Johnson & Johnson currently faces more than 67 000 lawsuits from consumers who claim they developed cancer after using the firm’s talc products. The majority concern ovarian cancer, while mesothelioma represents a smaller but highly publicised portion.
The company has repeatedly attempted to consolidate and resolve these claims through bankruptcy proceedings, but federal courts have rejected the proposals three times. Some mesothelioma cases have been settled individually, yet no nationwide agreement exists. Numerous state-level trials continue across the United States.
Over the past year, the company has lost several significant verdicts but has also secured courtroom victories. In South Carolina, jurors recently found Johnson & Johnson not liable. In Oregon, a 260-million-dollar award was overturned, with the judge ordering a retrial. These mixed results illustrate the legal complexity and unpredictable trajectory of the ongoing litigation.
Broader legal and corporate implications
The scale of the Los Angeles verdict intensifies scrutiny on corporate accountability and the use of punitive damages in the American legal system. Analysts believe the ruling could set a precedent for mass-tort actions involving consumer health products.
At the same time, Johnson & Johnson continues to restructure its pharmaceutical division to limit future liabilities while defending the safety record of its baby-care line. The company’s reputation, once regarded as a symbol of family trust, now faces renewed pressure from both investors and regulators.
Wider context
The Johnson & Johnson verdict comes at a moment when courts on both sides of the Atlantic are tightening scrutiny of corporate conduct and consumer protection. Across the United States and Europe, judges and juries are testing how far multinational companies can be held accountable for the long-term consequences of their products.
Earlier this week, a French court reopened the investigation into Air France Flight AF447, which crashed into the Atlantic 16 years ago, killing 228 people. The renewed inquiry follows new technical findings suggesting potential maintenance and safety oversight failures. The move highlights a broader judicial trend: regulators and courts are increasingly willing to revisit past cases to address unresolved questions of negligence and systemic responsibility.
Together, these cases mark a shift towards stricter global standards of corporate responsibility — from pharmaceutical safety in the United States to aviation oversight in Europe — reflecting public demand for transparency and justice that transcends national borders.
Read about the life of Westminster and Pimlico district, London and the world. 24/7 news with fresh and useful updates on culture, business, technology and city life: How Will Market Abuse Regulations Affect Cryptoassets in the UK
