Read the full article, Johnson & Johnson faces claim by 3,000 in U.K. who say asbestos in talcum powder made them sick, from CBS News.

Thousands of people in the United Kingdom have filed a joint legal claim estimated to be worth more than £1 billion ($1.34 billion) against Johnson & Johnson, accusing the U.S. pharmaceutical giant of selling baby powder that it knew was contaminated with carcinogenic asbestos.

The claim involves more than 3,000 people who developed various forms of cancer and other diseases and is based on internal Johnson & Johnson memos and scientific reports. 

Similar Lawsuits in the United States

The company has long fought thousands of similar cases in the United States, and despite winning some appeals, in June last year it agreed to pay $700 million in a nationwide settlement to resolve allegations that it misled customers about the safety of its talcum-based powder products in its marketing.

Recently, a Los Angeles jury ordered the firm to pay $966 million to the family of a woman who died from a form of cancer after using J&J products.

The U.K. Lawsuit

The U.K. lawsuit, which covers the years 1965 to 2023, claims that Johnson & Johnson, "knew their talc products contained carcinogenic fibres, including asbestos, for more than fifty years and chose to keep it on the market in pursuit of profit."

Despite the alleged knowledge of the carcinogens in its products, the firm only took its talcum powder products off shelves in Britain in 2023, the suit alleges, when it switched to a cornstarch-based product — three years after doing so in Canada and the U.S.

"For decades Johnson & Johnson have orchestrated a campaign of denials and subterfuge," said the claimants' lead lawyer, Tom Longstaff of KP Law, which has brought the case against J&J and Kenvue Ltd., which was spun off two years ago, before the U.K. High Court. "The facts are clear, contaminated talc contains carcinogenic material and Johnson & Johnson knew the risk to consumers."

"The scale of Johnson & Johnson's corporate wrongdoing is extraordinary, and we will be relentless in holding them to account on behalf of all those who have suffered due to their actions," Longstaff said.   

Johnson & Johnson’s Statement

In a recent statement sent to the media, Johnson & Johnson said inquiries about the claim "would be best addressed by Kenvue, our former consumer health business, which separated from Johnson & Johnson in August 2023. As a part of that separation, Kenvue retained the responsibility and any purported liability for talc related litigation outside of the United States and Canada."

Kenvue told the media in a statement that it sympathized "deeply with people living with cancer. We understand that they and their families want answers — that's why the facts are so important," adding that the safety of its baby powder was backed by testing by "independent and leading laboratories, universities, and health authorities in the U.K. and around the world" over years.

The company told the media that the Johnson & Johnson baby powder "was compliant with any required regulatory standards, did not contain asbestos, and does not cause cancer."

Talc is a naturally occurring mineral that is often found together with asbestos during the mining process, which makes eliminating all traces of asbestos from talcum powder difficult.

The claim alleges people who regularly used Johnson & Johnson talcum powders have developed, and in many cases died from, ovarian cancer, mesothelioma — another form of cancer — uterine fibroids and other diseases.

The Story of Siobhan Ryan

"My mother used it, and I used it," 63-year-old Siobhan Ryan told the media. "It smelled nice and was soft and lovely. When my babies were born, I used it on them. I thought I was doing my best for them … It was such a shock. We just hugged and cried. I couldn't believe what I was hearing when the doctor told me I had stage-four ovarian cancer."

Siobhan, who blames her cancer on Johnson & Johnson's baby powder, has been through three rounds of chemotherapy, near-fatal sepsis, and major abdominal surgery. Doctors say her cancer is no longer operable.

"They knew it was contaminated and still they sold it to new mums and their babies," she said.

The Internal Memorandum

According to the U.K. claim, Johnson & Johnson began in the 1960s to commission scientists to analyze its talc-based products. In 1969, an internal memo stated that until tremolite — one of six types of asbestos — was proven to have no adverse effects, its use should be minimized, and noted that talc could no longer be guaranteed to be safe for babies.

By the 1980s, it was widely accepted that all forms of asbestos were dangerous and could cause cancer, but Johnson & Johnson — and other firms — successfully lobbied the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to not regulate asbestos content in talc, according to the lawsuit.

FDA Testing

In 2018, the FDA finally began testing talcum powder and other related products for asbestos. A year later, Johnson & Johnson voluntarily withdrew a batch of its powder after the FDA found asbestos fibers in a sample.

The U.K. claims will be decided by a judge, rather than a jury, at the U.K. High Court's Manchester Circuit Commercial Court.

In a statement, Kenvue said it believes the judge will find that its talc-based powder did not cause cancer.

Discussion Questions

  1. As mentioned in the article, Johnson & Johnson has long fought thousands of similar cases in the United States, and despite winning some appeals, in June 2024 it agreed to pay $700 million in a settlement to resolve allegations that it misled customers in the United States about the safety of its talcum-based powder products in its marketing. Discuss whether this evidence is admissible at trial in the U.K. joint legal action. Should such evidence be admissible? Why or why not?

    This is, in some respects, an opinion question, so student responses may vary.

    In the United States, the judge controls the admissibility of evidence. In a trial, evidence is admissible if it meets certain legal standards designed to ensure the fairness and reliability of the proceedings.

    Generally, for evidence to be admissible in a U.S. court, it must be:

    (a) relevant;
    (b) not overly prejudicial;
    (c) based on a proper foundation (i.e., authentic);
    (d) not hearsay (hearsay is defined as an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted); and
    (e) not barred by other exclusionary rules (e.g., evidence that was obtained illegally in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution).

    In the United Kingdom, the rules regarding admissibility of evidence are similar to the U.S. rules.

    In your author’s opinion, evidence regarding Johnson & Johnson’s $700 million settlement in the United States will not be admitted in the U.K. trial. Settlements are typically entered with exacting language indicating that the defendant’s agreement to pay a specific sum is not an admission of legal liability. Therefore, in the Johnson & Johnson U.K., lawsuit, evidence of the company’s settlement is arguably not relevant, and would be overly prejudicial to the defendant because a jury might be inclined to believe that Johnson & Johnson paid such a large sum because the company knew it was liable.

  2. As mentioned in the article, Johnson & Johnson is headquartered in the United States (more specifically, in New Brunswick, New Jersey). As an American corporation, is Johnson & Johnson subject to the jurisdiction of a U.K. court? Why or why not?

    Johnson & Johnson is subject to the jurisdiction of a U.K. court, since it does substantial business in the U.K. More particularly, the U.K. court has specific (i.e., “case-linked”) jurisdiction over Johnson & Johnson since the joint legal action arises out of or relates to the corporation’s commercial activities in the U.K.

  3. In your reasoned opinion, what will be the likely outcome of the U.K. case against Johnson & Johnson? Explain your response.

    This is an opinion question, so student responses may vary. In your author’s opinion, the U.K. case against Johnson & Johnson will settle, in similar fashion to the company’s strategic decision to settle the U.S. litigation for $700 million.

    Settlements take cases “off the front page of the newspaper,” (i.e., away from public scrutiny and criticism) and avoid the inherent risk that a trial court might award the plaintiffs an even greater amount in damages compared to the settlement amount.