A Los Angeles jury has ordered pharmaceutical giant Johnson & Johnson to pay $40 million to two women who claim its talc-based products led to their ovarian cancer, as Newsweek reports.

The verdict adds weight to ongoing legal battles over the safety of Johnson & Johnson's talcum powder, products once commonly found in households across the country.

On Friday, jurors awarded $18 million to Monica Kent and $22 million to Deborah Schultz and her husband. Both women alleged their long-term use of Johnson & Johnson's talcum powder caused their ovarian cancer. The verdict comes amid mounting lawsuits filed against the company regarding health risks tied to talc-based products.

The lawsuit centered on the company's iconic Johnson’s Baby Powder and its Shower to Shower line of body powders. These products, once marketed as safe for daily use, are now under scrutiny for their long-alleged connection to ovarian cancer and mesothelioma — a rare cancer linked to asbestos exposure. Though asbestos is widely known to cause illness when inhaled, in these cases, plaintiffs argued that it contaminated talc powder, contributing to internal health issues.

Johnson & Johnson has repeatedly denied these allegations. Erik Haas, the company's worldwide vice president of litigation, criticized the Los Angeles verdict, calling it inconsistent with scientific research showing its talcum products are safe and asbestos-free. He cited previous wins, claiming the company prevailed in most of its earlier ovarian cancer trials.

Ongoing Legal Setbacks for Johnson & Johnson

The recent judgment adds to a series of legal troubles for Johnson & Johnson in relation to talc-based claims. In October, a California jury mandated that the company pay an astonishing $966 million to the family of a woman who died of mesothelioma. Plaintiffs in that case alleged asbestos contamination in Johnson's Baby Powder contributed to her tragic illness and death.

The financial and reputational damage has grown over the years. In April 2025, a proposed $9 billion bankruptcy settlement offered through the company's subsidiary, Red River Talc LLC, was struck down by U.S. Bankruptcy Court Judge Christopher Lopez. The judge pointed to irregularities in how the company solicited votes from personal injury claimants, ultimately rejecting the pre-packaged Chapter 11 plan.

In response, Johnson & Johnson chose not to fight the ruling through appeal. Instead, the company abandoned the mass settlement attempt and opted to battle individual cases in civil court. This risky legal approach has exposed the firm to potentially massive jury awards, as seen in the latest Los Angeles case.

Major Legal Reversals and Strategic Exits

After abandoning its bankruptcy appeal, the company reversed about $7 billion previously reserved to cover litigation expenses. This indicates a shift in strategy -- from a broad legal cleanup under bankruptcy to a piecemeal courtroom defense.

As consumer calls for safer products have grown louder, Johnson & Johnson made a critical product shift in 2020. That year, its talc-based baby powder was replaced with a cornstarch-based equivalent in most of North America. By 2023, all global sales of the talc product had been discontinued, a significant step likely prompted by declining sales and surging legal pressure.

The company claims it has since settled the vast majority of mesothelioma-related suits -- approximately 95%, by its own estimate. Furthermore, Johnson & Johnson reports having resolved all disputes stemming from talc supplier agreements and concluded state-level consumer protection claims.

Impact on Plaintiffs and Their Legal Team

For Monica Kent and Deborah Schultz, however, the legal journey has been personal. Their attorney, Daniel Robinson of the Robinson Calcagnie law firm, pointed out their decades-long loyalty to the brand. “The only thing they did was be loyal to Johnson & Johnson as a customer for 50 years,” he said, calling the corporate response to illness “a one-way street.”

The case puts a spotlight not only on the product but also on the larger issue of corporate accountability and consumer trust. Schultz and Kent are among thousands who have come forward over the years with similar claims, alleging diseases caused by long-term use of talc products -- often marketed for use on infants, children, and adult women alike.

Johnson & Johnson says it plans to appeal the Friday judgment. The company maintains that its product is safe and that its legal losses do not reflect the broader scientific consensus. Haas emphasized what he described as overwhelming evidence supporting the product’s safety, despite mounting courtroom defeats.

Lessons to Learn

1. Understand product safety and ingredient risks. Consumers should take the time to research the ingredients in personal care items, especially those used regularly or on sensitive skin. While not all health risks are avoidable, awareness can help reduce potential harm.

2. Fight for accountability when harmed by long-used products. Lawsuits like these show how victims can use the court system to seek justice against powerful corporations. Even when large companies deny wrongdoing, persistent litigation can lead to significant penalties and improved industry practices.

3. Be cautious about assuming trust in branding. Just because a product has been around for decades and comes from a trusted brand doesn’t guarantee its safety. This case highlights the importance of critically evaluating even the most familiar products.

Even with thorough precautions, it's important to note that illness can occur without warning, and victims are never to blame for placing trust in widely available consumer products.

Why This Story Matters

This case is part of a broader legal reckoning regarding product safety, corporate conduct, and consumer rights. It emphasizes the serious consequences of harmful exposure to everyday products.

With thousands of related lawsuits still pending, this story signals ongoing scrutiny that could shape future practices in the pharmaceutical and personal care industry.