Johnson & Johnson prevails in second talc bellwether trial

A Los Angeles Superior Court jury delivered a victory to Johnson & Johnson in the second ovarian-cancer bellwether trial, rejecting claims that the company's talc-based powders were contaminated with asbestos and caused ovarian cancer in three women who later died from the disease.

The jury determined that the company was not negligent in selling its talc-based products.

Following the verdict, plaintiffs' attorney Andy Birchfield of Beasley Allen Law Firm in Montgomery, Alabama, lamented the jury's decision.

"We're grateful to the jury for their service," Birchfield said. "We're certainly disappointed, and disappointed for the families, but we are just resolved to holding Johnson & Johnson accountable."

Birchfield said the plaintiffs will discuss the possibility of an appeal "in the longer term."

Johnson & Johnson was represented at the trial by Kirkland & Ellis LLP attorneys Julia E. Romano of Los Angeles, Christopher R. Cowan of Austin, Texas, and Shaila Diwan of New York. They declined to comment following the verdict.

Following the verdict, juror Henny Marshall said, "I don't think the plaintiffs' attorneys were able to give us enough information or convince us enough to say that the talc caused ovarian cancer," adding that some of the plaintiffs' healthcare experts said they don't warn their own patients about talc.

"If they felt strongly enough, I think that would be something they would want to do," Marshall said.

The trial, overseen by Superior Court Judge Theresa M. Traber, involved the families of Mary Owens, Bonnie Tienken, and Geneva Williams, three women who died from ovarian cancer following decades of using the company's talc-based powders.

The plaintiffs' case centered on allegations that Johnson & Johnson's products were contaminated with asbestos and that the company engaged in a decades-long campaign of fraudulent misrepresentation to protect its flagship brand. Attorneys from Robinson Calcagnie Inc., Wisner Baum, and Beasley Allen presented internal corporate records dating back to 1969, including a memo expressing "considerable concern" over tremolite asbestos in the company's talc mines. During rebuttal, Birchfield accused the company of maintaining an "antagonist list" to "neutralize" scientists who raised safety concerns.

In its defense, Johnson & Johnson maintained that its talc was safe and asbestos-free and that scientific studies do not support a causal link to ovarian cancer. Defense attorneys from Kirkland & Ellis LLP argued the plaintiffs failed to meet the burden of proof, noting that pathologists found no physical evidence of talc or asbestos in the plaintiffs' ovarian or fallopian tissues. They attributed the cancers to "sporadic" cell mutations and established risk factors such as advanced age and history of breast cancer.

This verdict follows a $40 million award in the first bellwether trial in December 2025, which found the company liable for negligence and failure to warn. As part of the coordinated JCCP 4872 litigation, the verdict is expected to influence settlement negotiations involving more than 70,000 pending claims.

Johnson & Johnson continues to litigate the cases following unsuccessful efforts to resolve the litigation through bankruptcy proceedings.