In another bellwether trial, a Los Angeles jury ruled on June 5, 2026, that Johnson & Johnson (J&J) was not negligent for selling Johnson’s Baby Powder containing talc. The verdict further underscores how unsettled liability remains in talc–asbestos litigation and whether (and how much) J&J will be held liable for fatal cases of ovarian cancer and mesothelioma.
J&J and fellow defendant Red River Talc LLC can take a moment to rejoice in their legal victory, which could affect thousands of consolidated cases in Los Angeles Superior Court, California State Court, and other multidistrict litigation venues. Previous jury verdicts in talcum powder lawsuits have resulted in both sides receiving favorable judgments.
Predicting outcomes in future cases is further complicated by questions regarding the scientific aspects of the claims, such as whether talc is truly a carcinogen and if asbestos exposure, through feminine hygiene and cosmetic talc products, can cause peritoneal mesothelioma and other deadly cancers. How data is interpreted and applied varies across juries, leading to wide disparities in rulings. Having a better understanding of the science involved and what plaintiffs are claiming in their suits might not offer a foolproof assessment of how pending suits will go, but it certainly won’t hurt.
“Just a Sprinkle a Day Helps Keep Odor Away” (but What About Cancer?)
If you were a baby in the United States anytime prior to 2020, chances are decent that your bottom was dusted with talcum powder at least once. Until recently, it was the primary ingredient in products like J&J’s Shower to Shower body powder, facial powders, and baby powder. A natural absorbent, it also reduces friction and helps prevent rashes. As part of a reformulation due in some (possibly large) part to the seemingly endless procession of talc-related lawsuits (which included a 2017 ovarian cancer judgment for $417 million that was later overturned by a judge), J&J switched from talcum powder to cornstarch in 2020.
Talc is a naturally occurring mineral made up mostly of silicon, magnesium, and oxygen. While asbestos, a known carcinogen, is not part of its makeup, the two are often found in the same mineral deposits, which can cause cross-contamination. J&J began selling its talcum-powder-based baby powder in 1894, and for decades, it was a trusted go-to for parents to use on their children (and themselves).
In 1976, the Cosmetic, Toiletry, and Fragrances Association (CTFA) issued guidelines asserting that all cosmetic products should be free of any asbestos-contaminated talc. Further research, including a 2025 study by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of the World Health Organization (WHO), suggests that the main cancer concern is not pure cosmetic‑grade talc itself, but talc that is or may be contaminated with asbestos during mining and processing.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has a pending proposed rule that would require manufacturers of talc-containing products to test for asbestos and rule them adulterated if any is detected. While that may put protections in place going forward, it doesn’t resolve whether J&J should be considered negligent and liable for relief that may include punitive damages. As evidenced by a split between plaintiff victories, sizable settlement amounts, and triumphant defense verdicts, it doesn’t appear that a firm, all-encompassing precedent has yet been set.
Is There Also a Three-Step?
J&J’s recent victory in the second bellwether trial, presided over by Judge Theresa Traber, combined three suits filed on behalf of women who died from ovarian cancer. The complaints claimed that the victims’ cancers were the result of genital talc use, which J&J had spent decades assuring consumers was perfectly safe. Citing numerous studies on talcum powder and ovarian cancer, the American Cancer Society has noted that mixed results indicate a slightly increased risk at most.
Given the potential for a massive ruling against them (a 2025 jury in a California wrongful death case awarded $966 million, including $16 million in compensatory damages and $950 million in punitive damages, which J&J has vowed to appeal), it’s perhaps not surprising that J&J has sought to limit its exposure. Known as a “Texas Two-Step,” it shifted its talcum powder-related torts to a newly created subsidiary, LTL Management LLC. LTL attempted to enter bankruptcy multiple times, but was ultimately dismissed in 2023 by the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals for a lack of “imminent and immediate financial distress.” Later, revised bankruptcy efforts were also rejected, and J&J subsequently said it would defend talc cases individually instead of through bankruptcy.
For now, it appears that J&J and LTL will be expected to satisfy judgments if they lose individual cases, but there are no guarantees in any trial.
