Johnson & Johnson Talc Litigation Advances as Expert Testimony Approved for Trial

Over 67,500 lawsuits claim that exposure to talc-based products manufactured by Johnson & Johnson led to ovarian cancer, and these cases are making measurable progress toward trial in federal court. A pivotal development was delivered through the recommendation of retired U.S. District Judge Freda Wolfson, who serves as a special master responsible for assessing expert testimony in the litigation pending in New Jersey. Wolfson's evaluation, centered on the admissibility of scientific expert evidence, represents a crucial procedural step that could bring the lawsuits nearer to a courtroom confrontation. In December 2025, a Baltimore jury imposed a substantial penalty exceeding $1.5 billion on Johnson & Johnson and its subsidiaries. This judgment was related to a plaintiff’s claim that she developed peritoneal mesothelioma due to longstanding exposure to asbestos found in talc-based products. This verdict underscores the gravity of concerns over product safety amid allegations impacting a far broader group of claimants. Judge Michael Shipp, overseeing the overall litigation, directed Wolfson to determine whether the expert testimonies presented meet federal standards for scientific validity. Wolfson's findings, while advisory, carry significant weight in framing the scope of evidence that will reach jurors. According to a detailed 658-page report, Wolfson concluded that the methodologies employed by the plaintiffs' experts are sufficiently reliable to warrant presentation in court. It is important to note that her role is confined to evaluating the procedural admissibility of the evidence rather than its factual correctness. On the other hand, Johnson & Johnson had advocated challenging the plaintiff testimony by contesting the scientific consensus cited by their experts. Wolfson recommended admitting rebuttal testimony from company experts, ensuring that the jury will hear divergent scientific opinions about causation. However, she did concur with the company’s position that certain lines of testimony ought to be excluded. These exclusions include expert opinions linking cancer to heavy metals and fragrance chemicals allegedly present in the talc products, as well as hypotheses that talc inhalation could result in talc migrating to the ovaries. Some motions regarding what testimony should be permitted or barred remain unresolved, with further hearings planned subsequently. This ongoing procedural process underscores the complexity and contested nature of expert evidence in this product liability litigation. Responding to Wolfson’s recommendations, Erik Haas, Johnson & Johnson’s global vice president of litigation, expressed that the recommendations contained flaws, emphasizing the company's intention to appeal the ruling to Judge Shipp. Haas highlighted the judicial responsibility to act as a gatekeeper, ensuring that expert opinions presented to juries meet stringent reliability criteria. The company’s stance reflects its strategic effort to defend the scientific underpinnings of its products’ safety. In related developments, a collective legal action involving approximately 3,000 claimants was reportedly initiated in the United Kingdom during October 2025. This case similarly alleges that Johnson & Johnson knowingly marketed baby powder contaminated with asbestos, suggesting that concerns are not confined to United States jurisdictions. Regarding market performance, shares of Johnson & Johnson experienced a decline of 1.73% to reach $214.43 at the time of the latest trading update on Wednesday. Notably, this price level is approaching its 52-week peak of $220.11, indicating fluctuating investor sentiment amid ongoing litigation. This sequence of legal proceedings and expert evaluations continues to shape the narrative surrounding Johnson & Johnson’s talc-based products. The clearance of expert witness testimony marks an important step toward trials that will critically examine scientific claims of causation amidst considerable regulatory and public scrutiny.