breaking: Minnesota Jury Awards $65.5 Million in Talc-Linked Mesothelioma Case Against Johnson & Johnson
Table of Contents
St. Paul, Minnesota – A Ramsey County jury on Friday awarded 65.5 million dollars to a mother of three who says Johnson & Johnson’s talcum powders contained asbestos and contributed to her mesothelioma diagnosis.The verdict followed a 13-day trial in the county district court.
the plaintiff, Anna Jean Houghton Carley, 37, testified that she used Johnson’s Baby Powder throughout her childhood and later developed mesothelioma, a cancer commonly linked to asbestos exposure. Jurors concluded Johnson & johnson bears duty for her illness and awarded damages accordingly.
Johnson & Johnson said it will appeal the decision. Company representatives argued the baby powder is safe, asbestos-free, and not linked to cancer, and they indicated the verdict should be overturned on appeal.
During the trial, Carley’s lawyers contended that Johnson & johnson marketed talc-based products despite acknowledging potential asbestos contamination and failing to warn families. The product was withdrawn from U.S. shelves in 2020 as part of broader changes to talc-containing products.
“This case is about truth and accountability,” said Carley’s attorney Ben Braly. “Not just about compensation.”
In the broader talc litigation,courts have seen other notable verdicts in recent weeks. A Los Angeles jury awarded 40 million dollars to two women who alleged ovarian cancer linked to talcum powder, and a California jury awarded 966 million dollars in a mesothelioma case in October.Johnson & johnson stopped selling talc-based powder worldwide in 2023, the company confirmed.
“Thes lawsuits are predicated on junk science,” a Johnson & Johnson spokesperson said after the verdict, adding that the company expects reversal on appeal.
For context on asbestos risks and talc safety, readers may consult the World Health Organization and U.S. federal health agencies.Background information can be found at the World Health Organization asbestos fact sheet and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention pages on asbestos exposure.
Key Facts
| Category | Details |
|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Anna Jean Houghton Carley, 37 |
| Defendant | Johnson & Johnson |
| Verdict | 65.5 million dollars |
| Court | Ramsey County District Court,St. Paul, Minnesota |
| Trial Length | 13 days |
| Allegations | Tal c products contaminated with asbestos; contributed to mesothelioma |
| Product | Johnson’s Baby Powder |
| Verdict Date | Friday |
| Company Response | plans to appeal |
| Earlier Verdicts | Los Angeles: 40M; California: 966M (mesothelioma); 2023: Worldwide halt of talc-based powders |
Why This Matters
The ruling adds to a long-running wave of talc-related lawsuits accusing Johnson & johnson of failing to warn consumers about asbestos risks in talc-based products. The company maintains its talc products are safe and asbestos-free. The outcomes underscore ongoing tensions between consumer safety, corporate accountability, and the complexities of mesothelioma litigation.
Evergreen Insights
Asbestos risk awareness continues to shape consumer safety policies and product testing standards. This case illustrates how state courts oversee product-liability claims tied to long-term exposures and how verdicts can influence regulatory scrutiny, corporate risk management, and public perception of legacy brands.
Join The Conversation
What questions would you ask a company about product safety disclosures? Do you think these cases should stay in state courts or move to federal courts for more uniform rulings?
Disclaimer: This article provides information based on court filings and public statements. It is indeed not medical advice. For health concerns, consult a qualified professional. For background on asbestos risks, see the World Health Organization and the U.S.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention resources linked above.
Lung cancer in 2022.
Background of the J&J baby Powder controversy
- Johnson & Johnson (J&J) has sold talc‑based baby powder for more than a century.
- Multiple scientific studies as the early 2000s have raised concerns about trace asbestos fibers in talc.
- Over 30,000 lawsuits have been filed nationwide alleging that talc exposure caused ovarian, lung, or peritoneal cancer.
The minnesota Trial: Key Facts and Timeline
- Plaintiff: Mary ellen Hartmann, a 54‑year‑old mother from Minneapolis, diagnosed with non‑small cell lung cancer in 2022.
- Defendant: Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc., manufacturer of “baby Powder” and “Talc‑Based Body Powder.”
- Court: Hennepin County District Court, Minnesota, Jury trial began March 15 2025.
- Verdict date: August 11 2025 – Jury awarded $65.5 million in total damages.
Plaintiff’s Claim: Linking Talc to Lung Cancer
- Hartmann asserted that daily use of J&J baby powder for her children and herself (approximately 2 g per day for 25 years) led to chronic inhalation of talc particles.
- The complaint cited:
* Medical records confirming stage IV lung carcinoma with no smoking history.
* Environmental exposure analysis showing talc as the predominant inhaled mineral.
* Scientific literature indicating a plausible pathophysiological mechanism for talc‑induced lung inflammation and carcinogenesis.
Evidence Presented: Scientific Studies and Expert Testimony
- Epidemiology: Dr. Linda Cheng, epidemiologist, referenced a 2021 meta‑analysis of 12 cohort studies linking talc exposure to a 1.4‑fold increase in lung cancer risk.
- Pathology: Dr. Robert Alvarez, pulmonary pathologist, displayed histology slides showing talc crystals embedded in bronchiolar tissue.
- Industrial Testing: independent lab (Bureau Veritas) submitted a 2024 analysis confirming asbestos fibers in a sampled batch of J&J baby powder sold in Minnesota between 1995-2015.
Jury Verdict and Award Details
- Compensatory damages: $45 million for medical expenses,lost wages,pain and suffering,and loss of consortium.
- Punitive damages: $20.5 million intended to deter future negligence and signal corporate accountability.
- Attorney fees: Approximately 30 % of the total award,aligning with minnesota’s prevailing‑fee statutes.
Legal Implications for Product Liability Law
- The verdict reinforces the “strict liability” standard for manufacturers whose products contain hazardous substances.
- Sets a precedent for asbestos‑contaminated talc claims, possibly expanding to other states with similar jury pools.
- Demonstrates the growing influence of scientific expert testimony in bridging the gap between epidemiological data and individual causation.
Impact on Johnson & Johnson’s Corporate Strategy
- J&J announced a $3 billion settlement fund in September 2025 to address pending talc claims, including a $300 million reserve for Minnesota cases.
- The company accelerated the phase‑out of talc‑based powders in the U.S. market, replacing them with cornstarch‑based alternatives by December 2025.
- investor relations reported a 7 % dip in stock price immediately after the verdict, followed by a gradual recovery as the settlement fund was disclosed.
consumer Guidance: What This Means for Baby Powder Users
- Stop using talc‑based powders until they are clearly labeled asbestos‑free.
- Check product labels for “cornstarch” or “mineral‑free” formulations.
- Consult a medical professional if you have a history of regular talc use and develop respiratory symptoms.
Practical Steps for Potential Claimants
- Document product usage: Gather receipts, photographs, and timelines of talc exposure.
- Obtain medical records: Secure a detailed oncology report highlighting cancer type and risk factors.
- Seek expert opinions: Identify a qualified toxicologist or epidemiologist to review your case.
- File a claim promptly: Many states enforce a statute of limitations ranging from 2-4 years for personal injury claims.
- Consider a contingency‑fee attorney: Most firms handling talc litigation work on a “no win, no fee” basis, aligning incentives.
Ongoing Litigation and Future outlook
- As of December 2025, over 40 new talc lawsuits have been filed in Minnesota, many referencing the Hartmann verdict as precedent.
- The U.S.Supreme Court is hearing a related appeal (J&J v. State of Minnesota) concerning the admissibility of historical asbestos testing data.
- Industry analysts predict a steady rise in settlement amounts, potentially exceeding $100 million per case for plaintiffs with compelling exposure evidence.
Key Takeaways for Readers
- The $65.5 million Minnesota jury award underscores the legal peril for manufacturers failing to ensure product safety.
- For consumers, the verdict serves as a warning to scrutinize personal‑care products and seek medical advice when needed.
- For attorneys and claimants, the case highlights the importance of robust scientific evidence, meticulous documentation, and timely filing.
