Minnesota jury awards $65.5 million to woman who says talcum powder caused mesothelioma
Jury finds Johnson & Johnson liable in talc-related cancer case as product line faced renewed scrutiny in ongoing litigation
A Minnesota jury on Friday awarded $65.5 million to Anna Jean Houghton Carley, a 37-year-old mother of three who says Johnson & Johnson's talcum products exposed her to asbestos and helped cause mesothelioma, a cancer that affects the lining of the lungs. The Ramsey County District Court jury delivered the verdict after a 13-day trial. Carley testified that she used Johnson & Johnson baby powder throughout her childhood and into adulthood, and that her family was never warned about potential dangers while using the product on their child.
Jurors determined that Johnson & Johnson should compensate Carley after findings that the company sold and marketed talc-based products to consumers despite knowledge that talc can be contaminated with asbestos. The product was taken off shelves in the United States in 2020. Carley’s attorney, Ben Braly, said the case was about truth and accountability as much as compensation.
Erik Haas, Johnson & Johnson’s worldwide vice president of litigation, argued the company’s baby powder is safe, does not contain asbestos and does not cause cancer, and he said he expects an appellate court to reverse the decision. The verdict is the latest development in a longstanding legal battle over claims that talc in Johnson’s Baby Powder and Shower to Shower body powder was connected to ovarian cancer and mesothelioma, which strikes the lungs and other organs. Johnson & Johnson stopped selling powder made with talc worldwide in 2023. “These lawsuits are predicated on ‘junk science,’ refuted by decades of studies that demonstrate Johnson & Johnson’s Baby Powder is safe, does not contain asbestos and does not cause cancer,” Haas said in a statement after the verdict. Earlier this month, a Los Angeles jury awarded $40 million to two women who claimed Johnson & Johnson's talcum powder caused their ovarian cancer. And in October, another California jury ordered the company to pay $966 million to the family of a woman who died of mesothelioma, claiming she developed the cancer because the baby powder she used was contaminated with asbestos.
The verdict comes amid a broader, high-profile pushback against talc products amid long-running litigation dating back decades. The company has faced multistate and nationwide lawsuits alleging that talc-based products contain asbestos and can cause mesothelioma, as well as ovarian cancer. In the Minnesota case, Carley’s team argued that the company marketed talc-based products to families despite knowledge that the product could be contaminated with asbestos and that warnings were not provided to consumers. The defense contended the science does not support the link between Johnson & Johnson talc and these cancers and that tests consistently show the product is free of asbestos.
The ruling indicates the jurors accepted the plaintiff’s causation theory tied to asbestos exposure from talc and contributed to Carley’s mesothelioma. The trial was observed as a benchmark in the broader talc litigation, even as regulatory and scientific views remain divided and courts across the country continue to weigh similar claims. Johnson & Johnson has argued that decades of independent research show its Baby Powder is safe, asbestos-free and not a cancer risk, and the company has indicated it will appeal the verdict. The Minnesota decision follows a string of contentious verdicts in other states, underscoring the persistent sensitivity surrounding consumer talc products and corporate responsibility.
In addition to the Minnesota case, recent juries have weighed in on suits tied to talc exposure. A Los Angeles jury earlier this month awarded $40 million to two women who alleged their ovarian cancer was caused by Johnson & Johnson’s talcum powder. And in October, a California jury ordered the company to pay $966 million to the family of a woman who died of mesothelioma, asserting the baby powder she used was contaminated with asbestos. Johnson & Johnson has said it stopped selling talc-based powders worldwide in 2023 and has stated that the lawsuits are based on flawed science.
The Minnesota verdict will likely be appealed, a step the company has signaled in other cases as well. Analysts and legal observers say the case could influence future talc-related lawsuits, though ongoing scientific debates and varying state laws make the landscape complex. The company’s position remains that talc-based products sold in the past did not contain asbestos and did not cause cancer, and that the evidence supports a safe conclusion.
The case underlines how talc-related litigation has persisted even after products were pulled from shelves and despite the company’s public assurances about safety. Carley’s victory underscores the enduring tension between consumer protection and corporate defenses in product-liability litigation. Johnson & Johnson has indicated it will pursue further judicial review, signaling that this decision, like others in the talc saga, may continue to evolve through appeals and future trials.
