Talcum Powder

What the lawsuit is about

The talcum powder lawsuit alleges that Johnson & Johnson talc products such as Johnson's Baby Powder caused ovarian cancer and mesothelioma, and that the company failed to warn users. Federal ovarian-cancer cases are consolidated in MDL-2738 before Judge Michael A. Shipp in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, and no global settlement exists after three failed "Texas Two-Step" bankruptcies. Johnson & Johnson disputes the claims and says its talc is asbestos-free.

As of June 2026, the Johnson & Johnson talcum powder litigation is one of the largest mass torts in the country: about 68,029 cases were pending in MDL-2738 as of June 1, 2026 — the largest active multidistrict litigation by pending actions — and individual cases are again going to trial after J&J's third bankruptcy attempt collapsed.

Talcum powder lawsuits allege that talc-based products such as Johnson's Baby Powder and Shower to Shower caused ovarian cancer, or mesothelioma linked to asbestos that can be found with talc, and that the companies failed to warn users. Johnson & Johnson disputes the claims and maintains its talc is safe and does not contain asbestos. Claim review usually turns on product-use history, pathology and diagnosis records, timing, and state filing deadlines.

Talcum Powder Lawsuit Update: June 2026

The defining development is the collapse of Johnson & Johnson's bankruptcy strategy. On March 31, 2025, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Christopher Lopez denied confirmation of Red River Talc LLC's prepackaged Chapter 11 plan — built around a proposed roughly $9 billion settlement — marking the third straight rejection of a J&J "Texas Two-Step" bankruptcy. With the bankruptcy route closed, tens of thousands of previously paused cases returned to active dockets.

As of June 1, 2026, 68,029 cases were pending in MDL-2738 per the JPML's monthly report, making it the largest active MDL by pending actions. The federal MDL handles primarily ovarian-cancer claims, while mesothelioma claims and many individual ovarian-cancer cases proceed in state courts. In February 2026, a Philadelphia jury found J&J liable in Emerson v. Johnson & Johnson and awarded $250,000; J&J said it would appeal.

For people researching the case, the practical point is that documentation drives everything: brand and years of talc use, pathology confirming the cancer type, and diagnosis timing matter more than settlement headlines, because no global settlement exists and individual eligibility is fact-specific.

Case Status Snapshot

• Status: Active / Investigating
• Primary injuries: Ovarian cancer; mesothelioma (asbestos-linked)
• Main products: Talc-based powders, including Johnson's Baby Powder and Shower to Shower
• MDL or court context: MDL-2738, District of New Jersey, before Judge Michael A. Shipp
• Pending actions: About 68,029 as of June 1, 2026 (largest active MDL by actions pending)
• Settlement status: No global settlement; three "Texas Two-Step" bankruptcies rejected, most recently March 31, 2025
• Key deadline: Varies by state, diagnosis date, discovery facts, and use history

Talcum powder lawsuit overview

The talcum powder lawsuits are product-liability and failure-to-warn claims. Plaintiffs generally allege two related injuries. The larger group — roughly the bulk of the federal MDL — involves women who used talc-based powder for perineal hygiene over many years and later developed ovarian cancer. A smaller group involves mesothelioma, a cancer associated with asbestos, on the theory that talc can be contaminated with asbestos because the two minerals occur together in the ground.

Johnson & Johnson denies that its talc causes cancer and says decades of testing show its talc is asbestos-free. The company stopped selling talc-based Johnson's Baby Powder in North America in 2020 and worldwide in 2023, moving to a cornstarch-based formula — while continuing to defend the safety of the talc product in court.

Because the science and the corporate history are heavily disputed, claim review tends to focus on concrete facts: which product was used, for how long, the cancer type confirmed by pathology, and how the diagnosis timeline lines up with the alleged exposure.

Talcum powder lawsuit qualifications

There is no automatic qualification rule. A claim review may consider whether a person used talc-based powder and later received an ovarian cancer or mesothelioma diagnosis, along with the duration and frequency of use, diagnosis timing, medical records, state filing deadlines, and whether the facts fit the claims being reviewed.

• Product use: The brand (for example, Johnson's Baby Powder or Shower to Shower), approximate years of use, and how the product was used.
• Diagnosis proof: Pathology and biopsy reports and oncology records confirming ovarian cancer or mesothelioma rather than another condition.
• Timing: When use began and ended, when symptoms appeared, and when the diagnosis was made.
• Other risk factors: Records a lawyer may need to weigh, such as family history, genetics, or other potential asbestos exposure.
• Legal context: State deadlines, wrongful-death rules, prior claim activity, and how the litigation is treating similar facts.

The "Texas Two-Step" bankruptcy fights

Rather than litigate or settle tens of thousands of cases individually, Johnson & Johnson tried three times to move its talc liability into bankruptcy through a maneuver known as the "Texas Two-Step" — creating a subsidiary to hold the talc claims and placing only that subsidiary into Chapter 11. Each attempt was rejected:

• LTL Management (first attempt): Filed in 2021; dismissed in 2023 after the Third Circuit held the subsidiary was not in genuine financial distress.
• LTL Management (second attempt): Refiled in 2023; dismissed again, with the Third Circuit affirming in 2024.
• Red River Talc (third attempt): A prepackaged Chapter 11 built around a proposed roughly $9 billion plan; denied by U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Christopher Lopez in the Southern District of Texas on March 31, 2025.

With the bankruptcy path closed, the litigation returned to the trial system. That is why the MDL's pending count is so large and why individual trials have resumed in state courts.

Verdicts and trials

The talc trial record is mixed, and past results do not predict any individual outcome. The most significant plaintiff verdict came in Ingham v. Johnson & Johnson, where a Missouri jury awarded about $4.69 billion to 22 women in 2018. On appeal, the Missouri Court of Appeals reduced the judgment to roughly $2.1 billion and trimmed the plaintiff group on jurisdictional grounds, and in 2021 the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear J&J's appeal — leaving the reduced award as a final result.

Other cases have gone the company's way. Juries have returned defense verdicts for Johnson & Johnson in cosmetic-talc cases, including in Florida and Georgia, and some trials have ended in mistrials. In February 2026, a Philadelphia jury found J&J liable in Emerson v. Johnson & Johnson and awarded $250,000; J&J said it would appeal. The mixed record underscores that each case turns on its own facts, evidence, and jurisdiction.

Current litigation status

Talc claims are active and coordinated in federal multidistrict litigation. MDL-2738, before Judge Michael A. Shipp in the District of New Jersey, handles the federal ovarian-cancer docket and remains the largest active MDL by pending actions. Mesothelioma claims and many ovarian-cancer cases also proceed in state courts.

With three bankruptcy attempts behind it, the litigation's center of gravity is back in the courtroom: expert (Daubert) disputes over causation, individual trials, and case-specific proof. Johnson & Johnson continues to dispute that its talc causes cancer or contains asbestos. Litigation status can change, and this guide is a general overview rather than a live docket report.

Key issues in the lawsuit

Talc lawsuits raise two central scientific questions: whether long-term perineal use of talc powder increases ovarian-cancer risk, and whether cosmetic talc can contain asbestos capable of causing mesothelioma. Both are heavily contested, with competing expert testimony on each side.

The factual issues in an individual case often include which product was used and for how long, whether pathology confirms the specific cancer type, the timeline between use and diagnosis, and other possible risk factors. Legal issues include warning adequacy, causation, state-law deadlines, and — given the bankruptcy history — whether any prior claim process affects the case.

Defendants generally argue that talc does not cause these cancers, that their products did not contain asbestos, and that other factors explain a plaintiff's illness. Plaintiffs point to internal company history, testing disputes, and expert testimony linking talc use to disease.

How claims may be evaluated

A talc claim review usually starts with product-use history: the brand, the years and frequency of use, and how the product was used. Purchase records, photographs, and family or witness statements can help establish use when receipts are unavailable.

The medical side focuses on the diagnosis. Pathology and biopsy reports, oncology records, surgical records, and treatment history help confirm ovarian cancer or mesothelioma and establish timing. A lawyer may also ask about family history, genetic factors, and any other potential asbestos exposure, because those can affect how a claim is evaluated.

Causation review weighs the strength and duration of use against the diagnosis and other risk factors. Because cancer is often diagnosed years after use, the discovery and accrual rules in the relevant state can be decisive.

Talcum powder lawsuit deadline considerations

Talc lawsuit deadlines vary by state. A deadline may depend on the diagnosis date, when a person knew or reasonably could have learned of a possible claim, use history, wrongful-death facts, and other legal issues. Because ovarian cancer and mesothelioma are frequently diagnosed long after talc use began, the discovery rule and any statute of repose in the relevant state can be especially important.

A person researching a talc claim should gather the product brand and approximate years of use, the diagnosis date and pathology, treatment dates, and any prior claim paperwork. Those facts help an attorney evaluate whether a statute of limitations, discovery rule, or other deadline issue applies. This guide does not provide state-specific legal deadlines; the state guide links below give local context, and an attorney licensed in the relevant state can evaluate an individual timeline.

Questions to ask before contacting a lawyer

• Which talc product did I use, and for how many years?
• Do I have pathology or oncology records confirming ovarian cancer or mesothelioma?
• When did symptoms begin, and when was the diagnosis made?
• Do I have purchase records, photos, or witnesses to help show product use?
• Are there other risk factors (family history, genetics, other asbestos exposure) I should disclose?
• Which state's deadline rules apply to my use and diagnosis timeline?

Sources and status notes

• Federal court context: Federal talc cases are coordinated in MDL-2738 before Judge Michael A. Shipp in the District of New Jersey; pending-action counts come from the JPML's monthly Pending MDL Dockets report (June 1, 2026).
• Verdict context: The Ingham reduction is documented in the Missouri Court of Appeals opinion (June 23, 2020), with the U.S. Supreme Court's denial of review (docket 20-1223) leaving it final.
• Bankruptcy context: Coverage of the March 31, 2025 Red River Talc dismissal is available via Drugwatch.
• Imerys talc trust: Imerys Talc America's Chapter 11 reorganization established the Imerys Talc Personal Injury Trust, a separate compensation path; case and plan documents are available through the Imerys Talc and Cyprus Mines bankruptcy information site.
• Litigation status: This guide summarizes public litigation status and should not be treated as a live court docket. The science, the asbestos question, and causation are disputed.
• Last reviewed: June 29, 2026.

Who may be affected

• People who used talc-based powder (such as Johnson's Baby Powder or Shower to Shower) and later developed ovarian cancer.
• People diagnosed with mesothelioma who have a talc-exposure history.
• People who can identify the product, approximate dates of use, providers, and diagnosis details.
• Families evaluating possible wrongful-death issues should ask a lawyer how state law may apply.

What injuries does the Talcum Powder lawsuit involve?

• Ovarian cancer
• Mesothelioma
• Other gynecological cancers (alleged)
• Asbestos exposure history

What evidence is needed for Talcum Powder claims?

• Product use history (brand, years, frequency)
• Purchase records or receipts
• Pathology and biopsy reports
• Oncology and treatment records
• Diagnosis records (ovarian cancer or mesothelioma)
• Family or witness statements on product use

How has the Talcum Powder lawsuit progressed?

What is the Talcum Powder settlement status?

There is no global settlement. Johnson & Johnson made three attempts to resolve talc liability through a 'Texas Two-Step' bankruptcy, and all three were rejected by the courts — most recently when a Texas bankruptcy judge denied Red River Talc LLC's roughly $9 billion prepackaged Chapter 11 plan on March 31, 2025. With the bankruptcy route closed, ovarian-cancer cases are coordinated in federal MDL-2738 and individual cases are being tried in state courts, with a mixed verdict record. No amount is guaranteed for any individual claim.

What are the Talcum Powder lawsuit filing deadlines?

Deadlines vary by state and may depend on diagnosis date, discovery date, exposure history, wrongful death issues, and other facts. A lawyer can evaluate how the relevant deadline rules may apply.

State-by-state guide links