Can J&J finally put the talc litigation behind it?

Tens of thousands of people have sued J&J in federal and state courts, alleging that its talc-based baby powder and other products caused ovarian cancer. J&J has long denied the allegations, arguing that decades of scientific testing show its talc products are safe and do not cause cancer. Results at trial have been mixed: J&J won several cases, but the litigation has also produced billions of dollars in verdicts, settlements and legal costs over more than a decade. J&J and leading plaintiffs' law firms - including firms that represent large numbers of plaintiffs with ovarian cancer claims and those that negotiated the deal - have expressed confidence that this deal will get across the finish line. Some plaintiffs' law firms said on Tuesday they are still reviewing the deal and deciding whether to recommend it to their clients. J&J said plaintiffs are more likely to take the deal after a recent court ruling by a judge overseeing the federal talc cases. That ruling cast doubt on plaintiffs' ability to prove their cases and highlighted tightening standards for the scientific evidence that can be admitted in court. The deal leaves J&J open to litigation from people who may develop ovarian cancer and who decide to sue J&J in the future. Ovarian cancer can have a latency period of decades, representing the time gap between when a person is exposed to a harmful substance and when cancer symptoms develop or the disease is detected. The company previously said that bankruptcy was the only way to resolve the cases, because it needed certainty about the future claims as well as the current claims. J&J has said it now believes it will not face another major wave of talc claims after completing the current settlement. J&J previously tried three times to end the talc litigation through [bankruptcy](https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-lawsuits-johnson-and-johnson-bankruptcy/). In each case, it created a new subsidiary, transferred talc liabilities to that company and then placed it into bankruptcy proceedings. Each bankruptcy was tossed out of court. The bankruptcies were fiercely opposed by some plaintiffs' lawyers, who argued that a financially healthy company such as J&J should not be able to use bankruptcy protections meant for businesses in financial distress. A bankruptcy settlement, if it had been approved, would have bound people who did not agree to its terms and claims from people who develop cancer in the future. The new settlement does not attempt to bind unwilling participants or people who develop cancer in the future. It is a voluntary process that does not rely on a bankruptcy court's approval. It will pay claims much faster than the bankruptcy would have. Plaintiffs' lawyers said the new deal will pay claims in full in less than two years, whereas the bankruptcy settlement would have paid out claims over 25 years. J&J says the settlement will move forward only if the deal is accepted by enough people to cover 95% of the estimated 76,000 ovarian cancer claims. That could happen in a few months, according to a plaintiffs' lawyer who supports the deal.

Can J&J finally put the talc litigation behind it?

What the talc litigation is about

Likelihood of success and remaining legal risk

How the new settlement differs from past attempts

What must happen for the settlement to take effect

Related News

Unicycive Therapeutics posts corporate presentation on kidney disease drug pipeline, led by OLC for dialysis hyperphosphatemia

ADS-TEC Energy to supply 10 MW/20 MWh battery storage system for Perlen industrial site in Switzerland

XBP Global releases transcript of 2Q26 earnings call

ADS-TEC Energy partners with BESS Perlen and wattss Group on 10-MW Swiss battery storage project

Bund yields near 15-year highs as investors fear protracted Iran war