Baby powder has a subtle, unsettling quality. It is white, soft, and slightly clean-smelling, and it is found on bathroom shelves in every home. Mothers applied it carelessly to their babies for generations. It served as the foundation for Johnson & Johnson’s entire brand. In courtrooms across the Atlantic, that identity is currently being dismantled.
With over 7,000 plaintiffs claiming that Johnson and Johnson sold talcum powder tainted with asbestos, the company is currently embroiled in what could turn out to be the biggest product liability case in UK history. On its own, the number is striking. However, the underlying details are more difficult to accept. According to the claims, J&J knew as early as the 1960s that its talc contained contaminants associated with cancer, including mesothelioma and ovarian cancer. The business disputes this. It has loudly, persistently, and at great legal cost denied it.
In late 2024, Margaret Manion registered for the UK claim. Only a few months prior, in April of that year, she had received a diagnosis of ovarian cancer. Tony Bowden, her thirty-year partner, called the diagnosis a “bombshell.” At the age of 73, she passed away in November 2025. Her mother had used baby powder on her when she was a child, and she had used it on her own children, so she had been using it every day for the majority of her adult life. Among the claimants, her story is not unique. One claimant passes away from cancer every three days, according to KP Law, the firm that represents them. Even a full trial has not yet been held in this case.
The UK proceedings, which recently began in the High Court, are primarily concerned with procedural issues, or how the litigation should proceed. However, there has been conflict even in those early hearings. The legal team representing the claimants has accused J&J’s attorneys of requesting so much information from each claimant that it amounts to a complete witness statement; they characterize this strategy as intended to be onerous enough to effectively end the case. The attorneys for J&J vehemently disagree, characterizing their requests as reasonable and equitable. It’s the kind of disagreement that may sound technical, but when people are dying while it’s going on, it really matters.
The situation is equally complex on the other side of the Atlantic. J&J was recently ordered by a Los Angeles jury to give $966 million to the family of Mae Moore, a California woman who passed away at the age of 88 from mesothelioma. The jury determined that the asbestos in J&J’s talc baby powder was the cause of her illness. Given that US Supreme Court precedent typically caps punitive damages at approximately nine times the compensatory amount, the $950 million in punitive damages included in the award may be lowered on appeal. J&J declared an immediate appeal, calling the verdict “egregious and unconstitutional” and characterizing the science used during the trial as being without merit.
Notably, J&J has prevailed in a few of these trials. Days prior to the Moore verdict, a South Carolina jury found the company not liable. An Oregon judge ordered a new trial and overturned a $260 million verdict. Although the science is concerning, it is not widely acknowledged as settled, and the litigation is genuinely contested. However, the sheer number of cases—more than 67,000 plaintiffs in the US alone—indicates that this is not a tale that ends quietly. J&J has made three attempts to use bankruptcy procedures to settle the talc lawsuit. Federal courts rejected all three attempts.
In 2020, the company switched to a cornstarch formula and stopped selling talc-based baby powder in the US. Talc-based versions were taken off the shelves in the UK in 2023. Depending on who you ask, those choices have different meanings. Some see them as an indication of a responsible business addressing public concerns. Others see them as a tacit admission of something the business still won’t publicly acknowledge.
The gap between the image and reality, or at least the purported reality, is what remains after all of this. a product that is promoted as a sign of concern for those who are most in need. A company that established trust in bathrooms and nurseries worldwide. And now there are thousands of cancer patients, a courtroom full of plaintiffs, and a legal battle that will most likely continue for years to come.
