Close this search box.





By Daniel Siegal

Johnson & Johnson’s talcum powder contained asbestos and gave cancer to 22 women, a St. Louis jury held Thursday, slamming the company with $550 million in compensatory damages plus $4.14 billion in punitive damages.

In the latest trial over the alleged talcum powder-cancer link, the St. Louis Circuit Court jury deliberated for less than a full day after a six-week trial, returning Thursday around 2:30 p.m. with a verdict in favor of the claims of 22 women from across the nation, six of whom have died, against J&J and subsidiary Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.

The jury unanimously held both J&J and J&J Consumer liable for strict liability and negligence as to all of the plaintiffs’ injuries, and generally awarded each woman suing on her own $25 million, and generally awarded women who sued with their husbands $12.5 million each. The total verdict amount was $550 million.

The jury also found both companies are liable for punitive damages as to each of the plaintiffs, and resumed deliberations as to the punitives for less than two hours, before returning at roughly 5:30 p.m.

The jury awarded $4.14 billion total in punitive damages, $3.15 billion against J&J and $990 million against J&J Consumer.

During closing arguments on Wednesday, the women’s attorney Mark Lanier of Lanier Law Firm had told the jury that the evidence was there that J&J had covered up testing data and scientific studies that it knew showed the cosmetic-grade talc in Johnson’s Baby Powder and Shower to Shower contained asbestos.

Lanier also described the plaintiffs to the jury one by one, mentioning their family members and details of their testimony.

Lanier had set up his closing argument in a theatrical mode, by referencing the hit police procedural show “CSI,” telling the jury that they knew that J&J had the motive, in making money, and the means, in their talcum powder, to cause the injuries suffered by his clients.

“This is CSI St. Louis in a sense. It’s your job to determine who is responsible, and the evidence says it’s Johnson & Johnson. And that responsible party needs to be brought to justice,” he said. “And as I told you at opening, it’s an easy thing to do, you’ve seen it on TV, you’ve just got to follow the evidence.”

Peter Bicks of Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, representing J&J, took aim at Lanier’s center-stage style during his closing argument, pointing to an old lawyer saying that when the facts are on your side, use the facts, when the law is on your side, use the law, and when you’ve got neither, “bang the table.”

“I give Mr. Lanier credit, he’s quite a showman, and he’s quite a storyteller, but some stories are just fiction,” Bicks said.

Bicks said that the fiction being told is that J&J is only about profit, and is keeping an unsafe product on shelves to make a buck, noting that the company’s own representatives, Susan Nicholson and John Hopkins, testified not only that the product was tested and found to be asbestos-free and not a cause of cancer, but that they used the product themselves, and on their children.

Bicks told the jury that the common thread between all the plaintiffs is that they had found out about the alleged link between talcum powder and cancer by seeing attorney advertisements on television.

The plaintiffs, including named plaintiff Gail Ingham, are represented by Mark Lanier of Lanier Law Firm.

J&J is represented by Peter Bicks, Morton Dubin and Lisa Simpson of Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, and by HeplerBroom LLC. Imerys Talc America is represented by Jane Bockus of Dykema Cox Smith, and Kenneth Ferguson of Gordon & Rees LLP.

The case is Ingham v. Johnson & Johnson et al., case number 1522-CC10417, in the 22nd Judicial Circuit of Missouri.



Filling out this form does not create an attorney-client relationship with Heard Law Firm. It is simply to put you in contact with our firm so that we can evaluate your potential claim. Do not provide any information that you consider confidential and would not want disclosed to third parties. If you would like to speak with us confidentially, please call us at 713-665-1100.

Questions About This Article Or Topic?

Please Contact Us


You understand that by using the internet or this form to communicate directly or indirectly with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not constitute or establish an attorney-client relationship. Please do not use this form to provide confidential or time-sensitive information to the firm.