Jury awards $40 million to two women in Johnson & Johnson talc case

Lead

On December 13, 2025, a Los Angeles jury awarded a combined 40 million dollars to two women who said Johnson & Johnson talcum powders triggered their ovarian cancer. The verdict split as 18 million for Monica Kent and 22 million for Deborah Schultz and her husband. Johnson & Johnson said it will appeal the liability finding and the compensatory awards. The case is the latest ruling in a broad, yearslong series of lawsuits linking J&J talc products to ovarian cancer and mesothelioma.

Key Takeaways

• The jury returned a total award of 40 million dollars on December 13, 2025, split 18 million for Monica Kent and 22 million for Deborah Schultz and her husband.
• Plaintiffs allege talc-based products made by Johnson & Johnson caused ovarian cancer; the company says it will appeal the verdict.
• Johnson & Johnson stopped selling talc-based baby powder worldwide in 2023 and replaced talc with cornstarch in most of North America in 2020.
• In October 2025, a separate California jury awarded 966 million dollars to a family in a mesothelioma case alleging asbestos contamination of baby powder.
• A U.S. bankruptcy judge in April 2025 denied J&J’s plan to pay 9 billion dollars to settle talc-related ovarian and gynecological cancer claims.
• J&J’s litigation vice president said the company has prevailed in 16 of 17 ovarian cancer trials it previously tried, and called the new verdict subject to appeal.

Background

The litigation over talc products centers on allegations that some talc supplies were contaminated with asbestos and that long-term topical use increased the risk of ovarian cancer and, in some cases, mesothelioma. Plaintiffs’ lawyers have pursued claims for more than a decade, arguing that internal company records and epidemiological studies support causation in some users. Johnson & Johnson has consistently denied that talc causes cancer and has pointed to numerous independent scientific evaluations it says find no causal link and no asbestos in its talc.

The commercial stakes rose as juries in multiple states issued large awards to plaintiffs, while other juries ruled for the company. In 2020 J&J replaced talc with cornstarch for most North American sales amid falling demand; the company ceased global sales of talc-based baby powder in 2023. Efforts to resolve thousands of claims through a 9 billion dollar settlement were rejected by a U.S. bankruptcy judge in April 2025, leaving litigation to proceed in multiple courts.

Main Event

At the Los Angeles trial that concluded December 13, 2025, plaintiffs presented testimony and expert opinions they said linked long-term use of J&J talc products to their ovarian cancer diagnoses. The jury found liability and awarded compensatory damages totaling 40 million dollars. The award was divided with 18 million to Monica Kent and 22 million to Deborah Schultz and her husband, as announced in court.

Plaintiffs’ counsel told the court the women had been loyal, long-term customers of Johnson & Johnson products and urged jurors to hold the company accountable. Defense lawyers countered that the science does not support talc as a cause of ovarian cancer and emphasized prior trial wins for the company. After the verdict, J&J said it would appeal the liability ruling and the damages amounts.

The only thing they did was be loyal to Johnson & Johnson as a customer for only 50 years, and that loyalty was a one-way street.

Daniel Robinson, Robinson Calcagnie (plaintiffs counsel)

We expect to prevail on appeal given the many independent evaluations concluding talc is safe and does not contain asbestos.

Erik Haas, Johnson & Johnson (vice president for litigation)

Analysis & Implications

The verdict adds to a mixed record of trial outcomes that has left both plaintiffs and defendants claiming momentum. For plaintiffs, the decision reinforces that juries can be persuaded by personal stories and expert testimony linking talc exposure to ovarian cancer. For Johnson & Johnson, repeated unfavorable verdicts raise reputational and financial exposure even as the company points to numerous cases it has won.

Legally, the decision may be appealed on multiple grounds, including challenges to expert testimony, causation findings, and procedural rulings. An appeal could take months or years, and even if some verdicts are reversed, the volume of cases and publicity create ongoing settlement and insurance dynamics for the company. The denied 9 billion dollar bankruptcy settlement in April 2025 left thousands of active talc claims in state and federal courts, prolonging uncertainty for claimants and the company alike.

From a public health perspective, courts are not scientific arbiters, and mixed trial outcomes do not settle the underlying epidemiology. Regulators and independent researchers continue to assess talc and potential contaminants, while manufacturers face commercial consequences: the move away from talc in baby powder products has already reshaped market offerings and consumer perceptions.

Comparison & Data

The table shows selected legal and corporate milestones since 2020 that have shaped litigation and market responses. Large jury awards and the failed global settlement attempt in 2025 highlight the fragmented legal landscape: some juries rule for plaintiffs with multihundred million dollar awards, others rule for the company. Those mixed outcomes complicate predictions about future settlements or regulatory action.

Reactions & Quotes

Courtroom reaction and public statements after the December 13 verdict reflected entrenched disagreement. Plaintiffs framed the decision as accountability for a major consumer brand; defense spokespeople emphasized scientific reviews and trial wins that support their position. Independent observers noted that appeals and ongoing cases will determine whether this verdict becomes a lasting liability or a temporary setback for the company.

That loyalty was met with a ruling that sought to hold the company responsible for harms the plaintiffs say they endured.

Robinson Calcagnie (plaintiffs counsel)

We continue to maintain the safety of our products and will pursue all available remedies on appeal.

Johnson & Johnson (company statement)

Unconfirmed

• Whether the specific talc batches used by the plaintiffs contained asbestos has not been independently confirmed in public records available from the trial transcript.
• Long-term causation mechanisms linking topical talc use to ovarian cancer remain contested in the scientific literature and were debated by experts at trial.

Bottom Line

The December 13, 2025 verdict adds another high-profile judgment to the complex web of talc litigation facing Johnson & Johnson. It underscores the gap between courtroom outcomes and settled scientific consensus: juries can and do find for plaintiffs based on the totality of testimony, while the company points to regulatory reviews and prior trial victories.

Practically, the decision is likely to be appealed and join a larger set of cases that will influence settlement dynamics, insurer exposure, and corporate reputational risk. For consumers and policymakers, the continuing stream of trials keeps attention on product safety, historic manufacturing practices, and how courts evaluate competing scientific evidence.

Sources

• ABC News / Associated Press — news wire (reporting on trial verdict and J&J statements)