Photo Credit: Getty Images
A Los Angeles jury has ordered Johnson & Johnson to pay a staggering $966 million to the family of Mae Moore, a California woman who died in 2021 from mesothelioma, a rare and aggressive form of cancer linked to asbestos exposure. The decision marks one of the largest verdicts against the company to date and adds to the mounting legal challenges it faces over its talc-based products.
Moore's family filed the lawsuit in 2021, claiming that Johnson & Johnson's talc baby powder contained asbestos fibers that caused her illness. The jury awarded $16 million in compensatory damages and an additional $950 million in punitive damages. However, this figure could be reduced on appeal, as U.S. Supreme Court guidelines generally limit punitive damages to nine times the compensatory amount.
The company swiftly announced plans to appeal, calling the ruling "egregious and unconstitutional." Erik Haas, J&J's vice president of litigation, dismissed the case as being based on "junk science," reiterating that the company's products are safe and asbestos-free. Johnson & Johnson stopped selling its talc-based baby powder in the U.S. in 2020, opting for a cornstarch version instead, but continues to deny any link between its products and cancer.
The lawsuit is part of a larger storm of legal battles facing the pharmaceutical giant. More than 67,000 plaintiffs have filed suits alleging that J&J's talc products caused various cancers, though only a small number involve mesothelioma. Despite attempts to resolve the matter through bankruptcy proceedings, a strategy rejected three times by federal courts, the company remains entangled in numerous ongoing trials across the U.S.
Mae Moore's family expressed hope that this verdict would push Johnson & Johnson to accept responsibility. Their attorney, Trey Branham, described the judgment as a step toward justice for victims who lost their lives to preventable illnesses.
While J&J has managed to overturn or reduce some verdicts on appeal, Monday's decision adds significant pressure to the company's ongoing reputation crisis. For many observers, it represents yet another reminder of how consumer trust can crumble when corporate accountability is questioned.
