A Pennsylvania state court jury has found that long-term use of Johnson & Johnson’s talc-based baby powder was linked to ovarian cancer, awarding $250,000 in damages to the family of a woman who brought the lawsuit. The verdict adds to the continuing legal debate over whether the company’s talc products posed health risks that were not adequately disclosed to consumers.
The jury at the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas ruled in favour of the family of Gayle Emerson, who alleged that her ovarian cancer was caused by prolonged use of talc-based baby powder made by Johnson & Johnson. The family argued that the company was aware for years of studies and concerns linking talc use to ovarian cancer but failed to provide clear warnings to consumers, Reuters reported on Saturday.
Johnson & Johnson has repeatedly denied that its talc-based products cause cancer, saying decades of scientific research and regulatory reviews support their safety. The company has also pointed out that it stopped selling talc-based baby powder in the United States and Canada in 2020 and later ended global sales, shifting entirely to cornstarch-based alternatives.
Although the damages awarded in this case are relatively small compared with some earlier talc verdicts, the decision is notable because it shows that juries continue to side with plaintiffs in individual cases. It also comes as Johnson & Johnson seeks to resolve tens of thousands of similar lawsuits through a broader settlement strategy, including the use of a subsidiary’s bankruptcy process, an approach that has faced resistance in court.
Regulatory actions in India
In India, Johnson & Johnson’s talc-based baby powder has faced a mix of regulatory scrutiny and legal action, though on a more limited scale than in the United States. Regulators, including the Central Drugs Standard Control Organisation, have in the past ordered inspections, testing of raw materials and temporary restrictions amid concerns over product safety and the presence of asbestos in talc. State authorities in Maharashtra also moved to suspend manufacturing and sales, arguing that licensing and safety norms had been violated. However, these actions were later challenged, and the Bombay High Court set aside the state government’s ban, allowing production and distribution to resume after tests found the product met prescribed standards.
Separately, as part of its global decision to move away from talc-based products, Johnson & Johnson voluntarily surrendered its licence to manufacture talc baby powder at its Mumbai facility, even though no nationwide ban was imposed. While a handful of consumer complaints and legal petitions have been filed in India, large-scale damage claims like those seen overseas have not materialised, leaving the issue largely framed as a regulatory and public health concern rather than a mass litigation crisis.
The Pennsylvania verdict, however, highlights the mixed outcomes Johnson & Johnson continues to face across US courts. While the company has won or had cases dismissed in some jurisdictions, other juries have accepted the argument that consumers were not properly warned about potential risks. As a result, the ruling underscores that litigation over the alleged cancer link to talc-based baby powder remains unresolved, keeping legal and reputational pressure on the company.