Missouri Court Orders Johnson & Johnson To Pay $2.1B In Baby Powder Lawsuit
The ruling said that "motivated by profits, defendants disregarded the safety of consumers despite their knowledge the talc in their products caused ovarian cancer.'' More than 19,000 plaintiffs had talcum-powder lawsuits pending against J&J in U.S. courts as of March 29.
The New York Times:
Women With Cancer Awarded Billions In Baby Powder Suit
A Missouri appeals court on Tuesday ordered Johnson & Johnson and a subsidiary to pay $2.1 billion in damages to women who blamed their ovarian cancers on the company’s talcum products, including its iconic baby powder. The decision slashed by more than half a record award of $4.69 billion in compensatory and punitive damages to the women, which was made in July 2018. (Caryn Rabin, 6/23)
The Wall Street Journal:
Missouri Court Cuts Talc-Powder Verdict Against J&J To $2.1 Billion
Mark Lanier, an attorney for the plaintiffs, said the appellate court’s decision Tuesday “carefully holds companies responsible for reprehensible conduct, while recognizing limits of jurisdiction and punitive damages.” ...The 2018 verdict, following a six-week trial in state court in St. Louis, was the biggest award of damages in a series of trials arising from lawsuits over the safety of Johnson’s Baby Powder, as well another talc-containing powder, Shower to Shower, that J&J used to sell. (Loftus, 6/23)
The Hill:
Johnson & Johnson Ordered To Pay $2.1 Billion In Baby Powder Lawsuit
Johnson & Johnson had appealed the verdict, requesting the court throw out the decision entirely, which the court declined to do, saying it had found “significant reprehensibility” in the company’s conduct. The court cited in its decision internal memorandums as far back as the 1960s indicating the company's talcum products contained asbestos, a known carcinogen. ...Last month, the company announced it would discontinue its talc-based products in the U.S. and Canada, citing decreased sales and “misinformation around the safety of the product and a constant barrage of litigation advertising.” (Coleman, 6/23)
