Johnson & Johnson owes $65.5 million to woman with cancer Court ruling

A Minnesota jury in Ramsey County District Court awarded $65.5 million on December 20, 2025, to Anna Jean Houghton Carley, a 37-year-old mother of three, who claimed prolonged use of Johnson & Johnson's talc-based baby powder exposed her to asbestos and caused her mesothelioma, a rare and aggressive cancer primarily linked to asbestos inhalation.

The 13-day trial focused on Carley's childhood and ongoing use of the product, with her legal team arguing that Johnson & Johnson knew of potential asbestos contamination in its talc mining and manufacturing but failed to warn consumers, per NBC News.

Attorneys presented evidence of internal company documents and scientific studies suggesting risks, while emphasising the product's marketing as safe for babies and families. Carley's lawyer, Ben Braly, called the verdict a matter of "truth and accountability" beyond compensation.

Johnson & Johnson immediately announced plans to appeal, with worldwide vice president of litigation Erik Haas reiterating that the company's baby powder is safe, asbestos-free, and not causative of cancer, backed by "decades of studies." Haas described the lawsuits as based on "junk science."

This verdict adds to Johnson & Johnson's mounting legal challenges over talc products, which the company discontinued in the U.S. in 2020 and globally in 2023, switching to cornstarch-based alternatives. Thousands of similar lawsuits allege links to ovarian cancer and mesothelioma from asbestos traces in talc. Recent cases include a $40 million award in Los Angeles earlier in December 2025 for two ovarian cancer plaintiffs and a $966 million verdict in California in October 2025 for a fatal mesothelioma case.

The company has faced over 60,000 talc-related claims overall, settling many through bankruptcy filings for its talc subsidiary (e.g., a proposed $6.5 billion settlement rejected in 2024), while winning some trials on scientific grounds. Independent testing has yielded mixed results on asbestos presence, fueling ongoing debates. The Minnesota case stands out for its focus on mesothelioma rather than ovarian cancer and its sizable compensatory award.

By Khagan Isayev