FOLLOW US

A high-stakes bellwether trial that could shape the trajectory of thousands of talc-cancer claims nationwide erupted Thursday with accusations that Johnson & Johnson concealed asbestos risks in its iconic powder products for decades. The dramatic opening unfolded before a packed Los Angeles courtroom in what plaintiffs’ counsel cast as a battle for truth — and survival.

First of Three Bellwether Trials in California

The proceeding marks the first of three bellwether trials in a massive coordinated action involving hundreds of cases in Los Angeles Superior Court. These suits are part of tens of thousands of claims asserting J&J’s Johnson’s Baby Powder and Shower to Shower products caused ovarian cancer — litigation recently revived after the company’s failed attempt to channel the claims into bankruptcy.

The case pairs the claims of plaintiff Monica Kent with those of Deborah and Albert Schultz, whose allegations will be tried side-by-side.

Plaintiffs Say J&J “Knew but Hid” Asbestos Findings

Anthony Dow Birchfield Jr. of Beasley Allen, representing Kent, wasted no time confronting jurors with what he said was the heart of the case: a paper trail showing J&J had known since at least the 1960s that its talc could contain tremolite and asbestos, yet chose secrecy over transparency.

As Kent sat in the front row with an oxygen tube, and Schultz—her head wrapped in a scarf—watched quietly, Birchfield told jurors the women “trusted Johnson’s to be pure and safe.”

He said internal reports, handwritten notes, and decades-old lab results will show a pattern of concealment.

“They didn’t know,” Birchfield said. “But the evidence will show Johnson & Johnson did — and they used their power to bury it.”

Documents Reaching Back to the 1960s–70s

Birchfield displayed documents to the jury, including:

• A 1969 memo noting tremolite in talc.

• A 1973 report acknowledging “fiber-forming minerals” in a company mine.

• A 1975 file labeled the “talc/ovary problem.”

• A 1964 discussion about switching to cornstarch — already adopted by the condom industry — because it was absorbable and considered safer.

One 1970s report found tremolite in J&J talc with a handwritten warning: “Do not use this one.”

He said the evidence would show J&J went into “full-blown crisis mode” when an FDA-aligned researcher detected asbestos in its talc, convincing regulators the results were flawed while providing its own contradictory tests.

Defense Fires Back: ‘The Science Isn’t on Their Side’

Allison Brown of Kirkland & Ellis LLP, defending J&J and its Red River Talc unit, countered with a starkly different narrative. She said plaintiffs were selectively quoting old material to evoke outrage.

“I’m disappointed,” she told jurors, “that you’re going to see cherry-picked snippets designed to make you so angry at a big corporation that you’ll turn away from the science.”

Brown said no reliable studies or government tests show J&J talc contains asbestos or causes ovarian cancer. She argued tremolite can appear in talc in both asbestos and non-asbestos forms, and that “trace amounts” do not mean contamination.

She also insisted J&J’s switch to cornstarch in 2020–2023 stemmed not from safety issues but consumer preference.

“You don’t stay in business as long as Johnson & Johnson by doing what’s alleged,” Brown said.

A Litigation Landscape Shifted by Bankruptcy Failures

The Los Angeles trial is part of a broader legal saga that has stretched across years and jurisdictions:

• In 2017, an L.A. jury issued a $417 million verdict, later overturned.

• In 2021–2024, J&J launched multiple attempts at a “Texas two-step” bankruptcy, seeking to resolve all talc claims.

• Courts ultimately rejected the strategy, including a Texas judge’s rejection in March, which scrapped a proposed $9 billion settlement.

With bankruptcy off the table, J&J returned to the courtroom — and recent outcomes have been severe, including a $966 million verdict last month for an 88-year-old mesothelioma victim.

The Human Story Behind the Science

Daniel S. Robinson of Robinson Calcagnie, counsel for the Schultz plaintiffs, described Deborah Schultz’s seven-year battle with ovarian cancer. He told jurors she had no genetic markers or environmental risks but used Johnson’s Baby Powder for decades.

Robinson emphasized studies linking talc exposure and ovarian cancer, noting the “striking consistency” across research spanning decades.

The plaintiffs will call expert William Longo, who they say has identified asbestos in J&J powders. Birchfield also noted the FDA’s proposed rule last year establishing new testing methods for asbestos in cosmetic talc.

Defense Insists the Big Picture Refutes Causation

Brown argued the plaintiffs' experts use unreliable methods and that if talc caused ovarian cancer, the country would have seen a dramatic spike during more than a century of widespread product use.

“I’m afraid you’ll see snippets,” she warned, “but not the whole picture.”

Trial Continues Friday

The bellwether trial — one that may set the tone for thousands of future cases — resumes Friday.

Representation:

• For Kent: Margaret M. Thompson & Anthony Dow Birchfield Jr., Beasley Allen

• For the Schultzes: Daniel S. Robinson, Robinson Calcagnie Inc.

• For Johnson & Johnson: Allison Brown, Kuan Huang & Julia E. Romano, Kirkland & Ellis LLP