Johnson & Johnson Faces Continuing Lawsuits Over Its Talcum Powder

In 1892, the director of scientific affairs of Johnson & Johnson (J&J) invented scented talcum powder. Talcum, or talc, is a soft mineral found in rock deposits. This invention quickly became J&J's Baby Powder, known throughout the world. Over time, the product expanded beyond being used on babies after a diaper change. In the early 1900s, women began applying the powder to their bodies and undergarments for a fresh scent.

In the 1970s, several studies suggested that using talc around the female genital area increased a woman's risk of ovarian cancer. Despite these studies, J&J denied the findings and did not include any warning labels on its talc-based products. By 2016, several female plaintiffs had been awarded tens of millions of dollarsmainly in punitive damages. Why punitive damages? Juries were convinced J&J had withheld critical information about a possible relationship between ovarian cancer and talcum powder for more than four decades. By 2017, J&J faced more than 2,500 lawsuits in state and federal courts.

In its defense, J&J contends that the National Toxicology Program has not yet fully reviewed talc. Moreover, the International Agency for Research on Cancer classifies genital use of talc as only "possibly" carcinogenicthat is, having the potential to cause cancer. After all, talc is found in a wide variety of cosmetic products and has other uses, such as in paints and plastics.

Key Point

1. Product liability lawsuits are common for large corporations. Note that in the talcum powder cases, 90 percent or more of the jury awards were for "failure to warn." J&J could have warned consumers of a potential link between genital use of talcum powder and ovarian cancer, but it did not. Of course, sales of talc-based products would not have grown so rapidly had such a warning been evident on each J&J Baby Powder container.

The talc mineral used in Johnson's Baby Powder has been linked to certain cancers in women.

Should the company be liable for not warning consumers about this possibility? Why or why not?