A Minnesota jury handed a 37-year-old mother of three a $65.5 million verdict after she alleged that Johnson & Johnson’s talc-based baby powder exposed her to asbestos and caused mesothelioma.
The Verdict
On Friday, a jury in Ramsey County District Court awarded Anna Jean Houghton Carley, 37, $65.5 million for damages. Carley claimed that her use of Johnson & Johnson baby powder throughout childhood and later adulthood led to the development of mesothelioma, an aggressive cancer linked primarily to asbestos exposure.
The Trial
The case unfolded over a 13-day trial. Carley’s legal team argued that Johnson & Johnson knowingly sold and marketed talc-based products that could be contaminated with asbestos, while never warning consumers about potential risks. They also highlighted that the product was removed from U.S. shelves in 2020.
Company Response
Johnson & Johnson said it would appeal the verdict. Erik Haas, the company’s worldwide vice president of litigation, maintained that its baby powder is safe, does not contain asbestos, and does not cause cancer. He expects an appellate court to reverse the decision.
Broader Legal Context
This verdict is part of a long-standing legal battle over claims that talc in Johnson & Johnson’s Baby Powder and Shower to Shower body powder was linked to ovarian cancer and mesothelioma. The company stopped selling talc-based powder worldwide in 2023.
Earlier Related Verdicts
Earlier this month, a Los Angeles jury awarded $40 million to two women who alleged that Johnson & Johnson’s talc powder caused ovarian cancer. In October, a California jury ordered the company to pay $966 million to the family of a woman who died of mesothelioma, claiming the baby powder she used was contaminated with asbestos.
Key Takeaways
- A Minnesota jury awarded $65.5 million to a mother who blamed Johnson & Johnson talc powder for her mesothelioma.
- The company plans to appeal, citing safety and lack of asbestos contamination.
- Similar verdicts in California and Los Angeles underscore ongoing litigation over talc products.
The case highlights the continued scrutiny of talc products and the legal challenges faced by Johnson & Johnson amid allegations of asbestos contamination.
