In February 2020, a New Jersey state court jury in Middlesex County awarded $750 million in punitive damages against Johnson and Johnson in Barden et al. v. Johnson and Johnson. The award followed a September 2019 verdict of $37.3 million in compensatory damages to four people with mesothelioma who alleged the company’s talc-based baby powder contained asbestos that caused their cancers. A New Jersey appellate court later reversed the combined judgment in 2023 and remanded for a new trial.
The Case
The four plaintiffs, Douglas Barden, David Etheridge, D’Angela McNeill-George, and Will Ronning, all diagnosed with mesothelioma, claimed they developed the cancer after years of using Johnson and Johnson’s baby powder. Mesothelioma is caused by asbestos exposure, and the plaintiffs alleged that J&J’s talc was contaminated with asbestos fibers.
The Plaintiffs
Each plaintiff presented evidence of long-term talc product use, including exposure dating to infancy. The cases were consolidated for trial in Middlesex County, New Jersey.
J&J’s Defense
Johnson and Johnson maintained that its talc products were asbestos-free, citing government tests, independent labs, and testimony from geologist Dr. Matthew Sanchez and epidemiologist Dr. Gregory Diette.
The Verdict
The trial proceeded in two phases. On September 11, 2019, the jury awarded $37.3 million in compensatory damages. On February 6, 2020, the same jury returned $750 million in punitive damages.
| Damages Type | Amount |
|---|---|
| Compensatory damages (Sept 2019) | $37.3 million |
| Punitive damages (Feb 2020) | $750 million |
The punitive award was roughly 20 times the compensatory damages, far exceeding New Jersey’s statutory cap on punitive damages.
Post-Trial Reductions
The trial court reduced the punitive award to $186.5 million under New Jersey’s statutory cap, which limits punitive damages to five times compensatory damages or $350,000, whichever is greater. That brought the combined judgment to approximately $223.8 million.
Reversal on Appeal
On October 3, 2023, the New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division reversed the entire $223.8 million judgment and remanded the case for a new trial. The appellate court found that the trial court failed to properly screen the plaintiffs’ expert witnesses under New Jersey’s standards for reliability, and ruled that the flawed expert testimony on talc causation had to be excluded from any retrial.
Context: Mounting Talc Litigation
The 2020 verdict came amid one of the largest waves of lawsuits against Johnson & Johnson in U.S. product liability history:
By the Numbers (2020)
- 38,000+ pending lawsuits alleging talc caused ovarian cancer
- 400+ pending mesothelioma lawsuits
- Multiple multi-million and billion-dollar verdicts
Other Major Talc Verdicts
| Year | Verdict | Location | Plaintiffs |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2018 | $4.69 billion | St. Louis | 22 women (ovarian cancer) |
| 2019 | $325 million | New York | 1 woman (mesothelioma) |
| 2020 | $750 million | New Jersey | 4 patients (mesothelioma) |
The Asbestos-Talc Connection
The core allegation in talc-mesothelioma cases centers on the geological relationship between talc and asbestos:
Natural Co-Occurrence
Talc and asbestos minerals often form in the same geological environments. Mining talc deposits can result in asbestos contamination if deposits are not carefully tested and separated.
J&J’s Knowledge Allegations
Plaintiffs introduced internal J&J documents that they argued showed:
- Company awareness of potential asbestos contamination dating to the 1970s
- Testing results that may have detected asbestos
- Decisions not to disclose certain findings to regulators
J&J has disputed these characterizations of its documents and testing history.
On October 3, 2023, a New Jersey appellate court reversed the entire $223.8 million judgment and remanded for a new trial. The appellate court ruled that the trial court had improperly admitted expert testimony on talc causation. The reversal means the liability finding did not survive review.
Impact on Future Litigation
The $750 million punitive award influenced the talc litigation landscape, even though the judgment was later reversed.
What the Verdict Meant for Plaintiffs
The award demonstrated that juries were willing to impose large punitive damages on J&J, which strengthened plaintiffs’ negotiating position in settlement talks and encouraged additional case filings.
What It Meant for Johnson and Johnson
The verdict was one of several that preceded J&J’s decision to discontinue talc baby powder globally in 2023 and its Texas Two-Step bankruptcy strategy attempts between 2021 and 2024.
The 2023 appellate reversal in Barden also raised the bar for plaintiffs’ expert testimony in New Jersey talc cases, which has affected how subsequent cases are litigated in the state.
What This Means for People With Mesothelioma
For people diagnosed with mesothelioma who used talc products:
Legal Options
- Individual lawsuits remain possible in many jurisdictions
- Deadlines to file vary by state (statute of limitations)
- Consultation with an attorney experienced in asbestos cases can help clarify options
Challenges
- J&J’s bankruptcy maneuvers created uncertainty
- Case timelines extended due to legal complications
- Individual outcomes vary significantly
What was the 2020 New Jersey talc verdict?▼
A Middlesex County jury awarded $37.3 million in compensatory damages in September 2019 and $750 million in punitive damages in February 2020 to four people with mesothelioma, Douglas Barden, David Etheridge, D’Angela McNeill-George, and Will Ronning, who alleged J&J talc products caused their cancers. The trial court reduced the punitive award to $186.5 million under New Jersey’s statutory cap. A New Jersey appellate court reversed the combined $223.8 million judgment in October 2023 and remanded for a new trial.
Why was the punitive award reduced?▼
New Jersey’s Punitive Damages Act caps punitive damages at five times compensatory damages or $350,000, whichever is greater. The trial court applied that cap to reduce the $750 million punitive award to $186.5 million.
Why did the appellate court reverse the judgment?▼
The New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division ruled in October 2023 that the trial court had failed to properly screen the plaintiffs’ expert witnesses under the state’s standards for scientific reliability. The court found the experts’ causation opinions were not adequately tested or peer-reviewed and ordered that the flawed testimony be excluded from any retrial.
How did talc allegedly cause mesothelioma?▼
Mesothelioma is caused by asbestos exposure. The plaintiffs alleged that J&J’s talc products were contaminated with asbestos because talc and asbestos minerals often form in the same geological environments. They introduced internal documents that they argued showed J&J knew of potential contamination.
Can people with mesothelioma still sue J&J?▼
Yes. Individual lawsuits remain possible in many jurisdictions despite J&J’s bankruptcy maneuvers, which were ultimately unsuccessful. Statute of limitations deadlines vary by state.