Johnson & Johnson agrees to $5.5bn US talc settlement
The pharmaceutical giant has reached an agreement to resolve nearly 70,000 lawsuits in the United States alleging its discontinued talc-based baby powder caused ovarian cancer, though a separate, high-stakes case in the United Kingdom remains unresolved.
Johnson & Johnson has agreed to pay $5.5 billion to settle approximately 69,000 lawsuits in the United States, marking a significant development in the long-running litigation over its talc-based products. The settlement, announced on Monday, covers 99.75 per cent of outstanding talc-related cases in the country but requires acceptance by 95 per cent of claimants in state or federal courts to become final.
Erik Haas, the company’s litigation head, stated that the agreement allows Johnson & Johnson to “put this matter behind it”. Lawyers representing the plaintiffs have welcomed the settlement as a positive resolution to a decade-long legal battle. The pharmaceutical giant maintains that there is no evidence linking talc to cancer, despite the product being discontinued in the US in 2020 and globally in 2023.
The legal challenges against the company have intensified since a 2016 US jury ordered Johnson & Johnson to pay $72 million to the family of a woman who died of ovarian cancer. Although that verdict was overturned a year later, subsequent juries across the US have awarded damages to plaintiffs, leading to a multiplication of claims. In 2024, the World Health Organization classified talc as “probably carcinogenic to humans”, a classification that has influenced public perception and legal arguments.
The US settlement does not extend to a separate, ongoing product liability case in the United Kingdom involving over 7,000 potential claimants. Filed in October 2025, the UK case is the largest of its kind in British history and alleges that Johnson & Johnson knew its talc could cause cancers, including ovarian cancer and mesothelioma, but continued to sell the product. The company denies this claim.
The UK case has proceeded before the UK High Court, where the outcome remains undetermined. While the US settlement resolves the vast majority of domestic claims, the international litigation highlights the persistent regulatory and legal scrutiny facing the company regarding the safety of its historical product lines.
