J&J Hit With $40M Verdict in Talc-Ovarian Cancer Trial

LOS ANGELES, CA – December 18, 2025 – A Los Angeles Superior Court jury has ordered Johnson & Johnson to pay $40 million in compensatory damages to two women, concluding that the company’s iconic talc-based baby powder was a substantial factor in causing their ovarian cancer. The verdict, delivered after a grueling six-week trial, found the healthcare giant liable for negligence, failure to warn consumers of known risks, and fraudulent misrepresentation.

The jury awarded $18 million to plaintiff Monica Kent and $22 million to Deborah Schultz and her husband, Dr. Albert Schultz. Both women were diagnosed with ovarian cancer after what they described as decades of regular, perineal use of Johnson's Baby Powder. While the jury found J&J’s conduct contributed to their harm, it did not award punitive damages in this case.

This decision represents a significant legal blow to Johnson & Johnson and marks a potential turning point in the sprawling, nationwide litigation over its talc products.

A Bellwether Verdict Breaks the Stalemate

The verdict is the first win for plaintiffs in an ovarian cancer-related talc trial since 2021. Litigation had been largely frozen for years while Johnson & Johnson made three separate, unsuccessful attempts to resolve more than 70,000 pending lawsuits by placing a subsidiary into bankruptcy. With federal courts repeatedly rejecting that strategy, most recently in April 2025, long-delayed trials are now moving forward.

This case was the first of six “bellwether” trials selected by Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Theresa Traber, who oversees California's coordinated talc proceedings. Bellwether trials are designed to help both sides gauge jury responses to evidence and legal arguments, often setting the tone for future settlement negotiations and trial strategies. At least ten more trials are scheduled in California through the first half of 2026, signaling a new and intense phase of legal reckoning for the company.

“This verdict reflects what the evidence made clear,” said Dan Robinson, trial counsel for the Schultz family. “For decades, Johnson & Johnson knew about serious safety concerns tied to its talc products and failed to warn women who trusted those products for daily personal use. We're grateful that the jury was able to see through Defendants' false narratives and hold them accountable for causing our clients' ovarian cancers.”

Decades of Concealed Dangers Alleged

During the trial, jurors were presented with a trove of internal company documents and expert testimony suggesting Johnson & Johnson was aware of potential health risks for decades but failed to act. A key witness was Dr. David Kessler, a former Commissioner of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Dr. Kessler testified that internal memos from as far back as the 1970s indicated the company knew its talc could contain asbestos—a known carcinogen—and made a deliberate choice not to disclose this information to regulators or the public.

Plaintiffs' attorneys argued this amounted to a multi-decade campaign to protect the image of its flagship product at the expense of consumer safety. Jurors also heard from medical experts who testified that talc and asbestos particles were found in the reproductive tissues of the plaintiffs. They presented peer-reviewed epidemiological studies suggesting that long-term genital use of talc-based powder could increase the risk of ovarian cancer by 50% or more.

“We're grateful that the jury saw through Johnson & Johnson's confusion and returned this significant verdict both for the Schultzes and Ms. Kent, but also for the tens of thousands of women who have been harmed by Johnson's Baby Powder,” stated Paul Dagostino, another trial attorney for the plaintiffs.

A Familiar Defense in a Widening Legal War

In response to the verdict, Johnson & Johnson announced its intention to “immediately appeal,” calling the decision “aberrant” and “irreconcilable with the decades of independent scientific evaluations confirming that talc is safe, does not contain asbestos, and does not cause cancer.” Erik Haas, the company's worldwide vice president of litigation, noted that J&J has won 16 of the 17 ovarian cancer cases it previously tried and expressed confidence it would prevail again on appeal.

This defense strategy has been central to the company’s position throughout the years-long legal battle. Johnson & Johnson has consistently maintained that its products are safe, despite pulling its talc-based baby powder from shelves in the U.S. and Canada in 2020 and shifting to a cornstarch-based formula globally in 2023, citing declining demand amid what it called “misinformation.”

However, the tide of litigation continues to swell. This $40 million verdict comes just two months after another California jury ordered the company to pay $966 million to the family of a woman who died of mesothelioma, a cancer linked to asbestos exposure. In 2018, a Missouri jury awarded $4.7 billion (later reduced to $2.1 billion) to 22 women with ovarian cancer, a verdict the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review.

The Human Toll and Corporate Reckoning

Behind the staggering financial figures are the personal stories of individuals like Monica Kent and Deborah Schultz, who were diagnosed with ovarian cancer in 2014 and 2018, respectively. Both testified to using a product they believed was gentle and safe for nearly 40 years. Their cases highlight the deep-seated trust consumers placed in the Johnson & Johnson brand.

For the company, the financial impact extends far beyond this single verdict. The failure of its bankruptcy strategy means it must now confront a relentless schedule of costly individual trials across the country. This creates a significant “litigation overhang” that weighs on its stock performance and brand reputation. The constant stream of headlines linking its most iconic family product to cancer continues to erode consumer trust built over generations.

The verdict also amplifies scrutiny on the entire personal care industry and the regulatory oversight of cosmetic-grade talc. With health organizations like the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classifying genital talc use as “possibly carcinogenic to humans,” this legal precedent may embolden more plaintiffs and force a broader reckoning over product safety and corporate transparency.