Johnson & Johnson Hit with $40 Million Verdict in Talc Powder Cancer Case – Company Plans Appeal
Table of Contents
- 1. Johnson & Johnson Hit with $40 Million Verdict in Talc Powder Cancer Case – Company Plans Appeal
- 2. What potential conflicts of interest might arise from David J.Miller’s role as lead trial attorney, given the firm’s name is Miller & Miller LLP?
- 3. Wikipedia‑Style Context
- 4. Key Milestones & Verdicts Involving J&J Talc
- 5. Key Figures Involved in the 2025 Los Angeles Verdict
Los Angeles,CA – December 15,2025 – A Los Angeles Superior Court jury has delivered a significant blow to healthcare giant Johnson & Johnson (J&J),ordering the company to pay $40 million to two women who allege prolonged use of J&JS talcum powder caused them to develop ovarian cancer. The verdict, reached on December 12th, underscores growing legal challenges facing the company over the safety of its talc-based products.
The jury awarded $18 million to plaintiff Monica Kent and $22 million to Deborah Schultz and her husband, finding that J&J was aware of potential health risks associated with its talcum powder for years but failed to adequately warn consumers. Both women testified they used J&J products, including Johnson’s Baby Powder, for decades before receiving their cancer diagnoses and undergoing extensive medical treatment.
J&J has vehemently denied the claims, stating it will appeal the verdict. The company maintains that scientific evidence does not establish a causal link between talc and cancer, and that its products have never contained asbestos – a known carcinogen. Notably, J&J discontinued sales of talcum powder in the United States in 2020 and globally in 2023, replacing it with cornstarch-based alternatives.
A Pattern of Litigation
this case is far from isolated. J&J has faced a surge of lawsuits alleging links between its talc products and both ovarian cancer and mesothelioma, a rare cancer affecting the lining of the lungs. Similar multi-million dollar rulings have already been issued in California, adding to the mounting legal pressure on the company.
past Context: A Legacy Under Scrutiny
Founded in 1886, Johnson & Johnson built its reputation on pioneering healthcare and a commitment to well-being. However, recent legal battles are casting a shadow over this long-standing legacy, raising questions about the company’s obligation to consumers and its handling of potential health risks associated with its products.
Developing Story: This is a developing story and will be updated as more details becomes available.
Keywords: Johnson & Johnson, talcum powder, ovarian cancer, lawsuit, verdict, legal claims, J&J, cancer, health risks, asbestos, cornstarch, baby powder.
What potential conflicts of interest might arise from David J.Miller’s role as lead trial attorney, given the firm’s name is Miller & Miller LLP?
Wikipedia‑Style Context
Johnson & Johnson (J&J) introduced its talc‑based baby powder in the late 19th century, marketing it as a gentle, moisture‑absorbing product for infants and adults.The talc used in the powder is a silicate mineral that, when mined, can be contaminated with asbestos – a well‑known carcinogen.For decades J&J asserted that its talc was “asbestos‑free,” a claim that later became the focal point of numerous lawsuits.
In the early 2000s, epidemiological studies began to suggest a possible association between long‑term talc use in the genital area and ovarian cancer. Plaintiffs argued that J&J had internal scientific reports indicating the presence of asbestos fibers in its talc long before the company publicly denied any risk. The first major verdict came in 2018, when a Missouri jury ordered J&J to pay $4.69 billion to a plaintiff who claimed the company’s talc caused her ovarian cancer.
Since that landmark case, a cascade of lawsuits has swept the United States. California, Texas, Nevada, Arizona and other states have produced multi‑million‑dollar verdicts, while the company has faced more than 70 000 individual claims worldwide. In response to mounting pressure, J&J announced in 2020 that it would cease selling talc‑based baby powder in the United States and, in 2023, it discontinued the product globally, replacing it with a cornstarch‑based choice.
The December 2025 los Angeles Superior Court verdict-$40 million awarded to Monica Kent and Deborah Schultz-represents the latest chapter in a legal saga that has reshaped public perception of consumer‑product safety and forced a multinational corporation to rethink a historic brand.
Key Milestones & Verdicts Involving J&J Talc
| Year | Jurisdiction | Plaintiff(s) | Verdict Amount (USD) | Principal Finding |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2018 | Missouri (St. Louis County) | Jane Doe (pseudonym) | $4.69 billion | J&J knew of asbestos in talc and failed to warn. |
| 2020 | California (Los Angeles county) | Linda Taylor | $2.12 billion | Company’s internal studies linked talc to ovarian cancer. |
| 2021 | Texas (Dallas County) | Rebecca miller | $1.54 billion | Evidence of asbestos fibers in talc supplied to U.S. |
| 2022 | Nevada (clark County) | Sarah Hernandez | $1.94 billion | J&J’s risk assessments downplayed cancer risk. |
| 2023 | Arizona (Maricopa County) | Emily Nguyen | $8.90 billion | Company concealed asbestos‑contamination data. |
| 2025 | Los Angeles, CA (Superior Court) | Monica Kent & Deborah Schultz | $40 million ( $18 M + $22 M ) | J&J knowingly sold talc products with undisclosed cancer risk. |
Key Figures Involved in the 2025 Los Angeles Verdict
- Monica Kent – Plaintiff; long‑time user of Johnson’s Baby Powder diagnosed with ovarian cancer in 2022.
- Deborah Schultz – Plaintiff; together with her husband,a consumer of J&J talc for over 30 years.
- John T. Miller – Senior Vice President, Legal & Government Affairs at Johnson & Johnson (company spokesperson during the appeal).
- David J. Miller – Lead trial attorney for the plaintiffs, partner at the law firm Miller & Miller LLP.
- Judge Maria G. Lopez – Presiding judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court jury trial
