Johnson & Johnson (J&J) has offered to pay as much as $5.5bn (£4.14bn) to resolve tens of thousands of lawsuits in the US alleging that its baby powder and other products containing talcum cause ovarian cancer.
Johnson & Johnson on Monday said the settlement covers about 76,000 claims, including ones consolidated in a federal court in New Jersey, and related cases in state court, representing nearly all of the remaining talc claims against the company.
The US multinational had previously settled most of the cases alleging that its talc contained asbestos and caused mesothelioma.
Plaintiffs’ law firms confirmed the deal on Monday, saying it was a good resolution after a 10-year court battle. The deal must be accepted by 95% of the ovarian cancer claimants in state or federal court before it becomes final.
Johnson & Johnson’s vice-president of litigation, Erik Haas, said the claims were “meritless” and that the company was willing to settle in order to get closure.
“While we are confident the company would have ultimately prevailed with further litigation, as it has in the vast majority of cases tried to date, this resolution allows the company to put this matter behind it and remain focused on its mission to develop medicines and devices that save lives,” Haas said.
Johnson & Johnson expects to pay $3bn in 2027, and it will make further payments in 2028. But the deal could be worth more, depending on how many people participate in the settlement.
Chris Seeger, a lawyer who represents about 2,500 clients with talc claims and helped negotiate the agreement, said Johnson & Johnson could ultimately pay $7bn or more.
The settlement assigns specific values to qualifying ovarian cancer claims but does not cap Johnson & Johnson’s total payout, Seeger said. “We got a fair settlement, and our clients are going to be happy with it.”
Johnson & Johnson reached the settlement after a series of wins in court, including victories in individual trials, successful efforts to disqualify plaintiffs’ lawyers from the litigation, and court rulings against experts that plaintiffs had used to prove their cases in court.
