U.S. judge allows experts to testify that talc products cause cancer in J&J cases

By Diana Novak Jones

Jan 20 (Reuters) – In a victory for thousands of women suing Johnson & Johnson alleging the company’s baby powder and other talc products caused ovarian cancer, a federal judge ruled on Tuesday that experts supporting the link will be allowed to testify at the hearing.

The decision by an outside judge serving as a special expert in the “long-running case” involving more than 67,500 cases consolidated in federal court in New Jersey will allow the cases to potentially move forward to a first hearing in federal court later this year.

Product liability lawsuits J&J has faced regarding its talc products rely on experts to determine whether the product could have caused the alleged harm. Decisions regarding expert testimony can sometimes be an important turning point in these cases.

U.S. District Judge Michael Shipp in Trenton, New Jersey, who is overseeing the case, assigned retired U.S. District Judge Freda Wolfson to consider what expert testimony might be allowed at trial based on whether it meets scientific standards set out in federal law.

J&J, which has been fighting claims about its talc products in both federal and state courts for years, has said its products are safe and do not cause cancer. J&J stopped selling talc-based baby powder in the U.S. in 2020 and switched to a cornstarch product.

Wolfson examines the scientific evidence in the case for the second time; because he oversaw the so-called multidistrict litigation from its inception in 2016 until his retirement in 2023, when the case was transferred to Shipp. He sided with the plaintiffs in 2020, saying their experts would be allowed to testify that the products’ link to cancer could be due to contamination of talc with asbestos and heavy metals. J&J said its products do not contain asbestos.

In 2024, Shipp said he wants scientific evidence reevaluated due to two factors: recent changes to federal rules governing expert testimony strengthen the role of courts in reviewing experts’ methodologies and conclusions before allowing them to testify, and the emergence of new scientific evidence.

J&J had attempted to resolve the case through bankruptcy; This tactic has been rejected by federal courts three times, most recently in April 2025. Bankruptcies had put most talc product cases on hold for years.

As part of its strategy to combat the allegations, J&J also sued the scientists whose research and testimony were used to support the plaintiffs’ cases, accusing them of falsifying their results by implicating people who were likely exposed to asbestos through other means. One of these cases is still ongoing, and the other has been dismissed.

Before its bankruptcy attempts, J&J had a mixed record in state courts; some cases had already been heard; It was decided to pay a high verdict of $4.69 billion to 22 women who said that baby powder caused ovarian cancer. The company won the verdict in this case, with some appeals reduced and some cases won outright.

Separately, J&J has also faced lawsuits alleging that its talc products cause a rare and fatal cancer called mesothelioma. The company resolved some of these claims, but did not reach a nationwide settlement; For this reason, many cases related to mesothelioma have begun to be heard in state courts in recent months. In the past year, J&J has been subject to several landmark rulings in mesothelioma cases; among them was a December verdict in Baltimore that awarded more than $1.5 billion in damages.

(Reporting by Diana Novak ‌Jones; Additional reporting by Jonathan Stempel; Editing by Alexia Garamfalvi and Thomas Derpinghaus)