A Minnesota jury has ordered Johnson & Johnson to pay $65.5 million to a woman who alleged that long-term use of the company’s talc-based baby powder exposed her to asbestos and caused mesothelioma. The verdict, handed down in Ramsey County late last week, marks another major setback for the company as it continues to face thousands of lawsuits nationwide tied to its talc products.
The plaintiff, a 37-year-old mother, argued that she used Johnson & Johnson baby powder regularly from childhood and was never warned about potential asbestos contamination. Mesothelioma is a rare and aggressive cancer most commonly associated with asbestos exposure, and jurors ultimately agreed that the talc products were a substantial contributing factor in her illness.
Jury Finds Johnson & Johnson Liable After Lengthy Trial
After a 13-day trial, jurors concluded that Johnson & Johnson failed to adequately warn consumers about the risks associated with its talc products. The jury awarded compensatory damages intended to cover medical costs, pain and suffering, and the profound life impact of a terminal cancer diagnosis.
Attorneys for the plaintiff emphasized evidence showing asbestos contamination in talc mined and used during the years the plaintiff relied on the products. Johnson & Johnson disputed those claims throughout the trial and maintains that its talc products are safe and asbestos-free.
The company has indicated it plans to appeal the verdict.
A Growing Pattern of Talc Verdicts Against J&J
The Minnesota decision fits into a broader pattern of jury verdicts finding Johnson & Johnson liable in talc-related cancer cases. In recent months, juries in other states have also returned significant awards in cases involving ovarian cancer and mesothelioma, signaling continued skepticism toward the company’s long-standing defense.
These courtroom losses come at a time when Johnson & Johnson has sought alternative paths to resolve talc litigation, including attempts to funnel claims into bankruptcy court through a subsidiary. While those efforts were designed to cap liability and end jury trials, courts have repeatedly rejected them.
How This Verdict Connects to J&J’s Bankruptcy Strategy
As we wrote about in a previous blog post, Johnson & Johnson has spent years attempting to resolve talc claims through a controversial bankruptcy strategy involving a subsidiary created to absorb liability. That approach was heavily scrutinized and ultimately rejected by courts, forcing the company back into traditional litigation.
👉 J&J Talc Bankruptcy Settlement Faces Scrutiny
https://duboselawfirm.com/johnson-and-johnson-talc-bankruptcy-settlement/
👉 Johnson & Johnson Talc Bankruptcy Rejected
https://duboselawfirm.com/johnson-and-johnson-talc-bankruptcy-rejected/
Those earlier articles explain how Johnson & Johnson tried to limit exposure through bankruptcy, why judges refused to approve the plan, and how jury trials like the Minnesota case continue to move forward as a result.
Johnson & Johnson’s Response
Following the verdict, Johnson & Johnson reiterated its position that decades of scientific research support the safety of its talc products. The company described the verdict as inconsistent with the evidence and confirmed it will pursue an appeal.
Despite these statements, juries across multiple jurisdictions have continued to side with plaintiffs who allege they were harmed by long-term talc use without adequate warnings.
Why the Minnesota Verdict Matters
This ruling is notable not only for its size, but for what it represents in the larger talc litigation landscape. It reinforces the reality that individual cases are still being heard by juries and that bankruptcy strategies have not insulated Johnson & Johnson from trial outcomes.
For plaintiffs and their families, the verdict underscores that courts remain open venues for accountability. For corporations, it highlights the risks of prolonged litigation strategies that attempt to delay or redirect claims rather than resolve them.
Looking Ahead
With thousands of talc cases still pending nationwide, the Minnesota verdict adds to the mounting legal pressure on Johnson & Johnson. Appeals are expected, but the steady stream of jury awards suggests that talc litigation will remain active and closely watched.
As courts continue to weigh evidence and juries render decisions, the outcome of these cases will play a significant role in shaping how large corporations are held accountable for alleged product-related harm.
Frequently Asked Questions
What did the Minnesota jury decide in the Johnson & Johnson talc case?
The jury found that Johnson & Johnson’s talc-based baby powder contributed to the plaintiff’s mesothelioma and awarded $65.5 million in compensatory damages.
What type of cancer was involved in this case?
The plaintiff was diagnosed with mesothelioma, a rare and aggressive cancer most commonly linked to asbestos exposure.
Does Johnson & Johnson admit its talc products contain asbestos?
No. Johnson & Johnson continues to deny that its talc products ever contained asbestos and maintains that they are safe.
Will Johnson & Johnson appeal the verdict?
Yes. The company has stated it plans to appeal the Minnesota jury’s decision.
How does this verdict affect other talc lawsuits?
While each case is decided individually, large verdicts like this can influence settlement discussions and demonstrate how juries may respond to similar evidence.
Are talc lawsuits still being filed?
Yes. Thousands of talc-related claims remain pending across the United States, involving both ovarian cancer and mesothelioma allegations.
Engineered Stone in Texas: What Los Angeles’ Silicosis Crisis Means for Workers Here