A Broward County jury has ordered Johnson & Johnson to pay $20 million to the family of Dr. Alberto A. Casaretto Sr., who died from mesothelioma linked to decades of using the company’s talc-based body powders.
The verdict reflects a consistent pattern: juries across the country are holding J&J accountable for marketing talc products despite internal evidence of asbestos contamination dating back to the 1960s and 1970s.
The Evidence Behind the Verdict
What distinguishes these cases isn’t just the size of awards but the evidence juries hear. Internal company documents show that J&J detected asbestos in its talc samples as far back as 1972 to 1975, with one test recording levels described as “rather high.”
Despite this knowledge, the company failed to warn the FDA or consumers, continued selling the products, and—according to plaintiff attorneys—developed testing protocols designed to avoid finding the contamination it knew was there.
J&J had a known safer alternative, cornstarch, available but chose to market talc as safe instead. The company didn’t discontinue talc-based baby powder until 2023, replacing it with cornstarch only after decades of litigation.
Part of a Broader Accountability Movement
The Casaretto verdict is one of dozens reaching conclusion in recent months as litigation against J&J accelerates:
- $1.56 billion to a Baltimore mesothelioma patient (December 2025)
- $40 million to two California women with ovarian cancer
- Over $2.5 billion in total verdicts against J&J in 2025 alone
The Ongoing Litigation
As of January 2026, over 67,000 talc lawsuits remain pending against J&J. The company has settled around 95% of mesothelioma claims filed, but continues to face juries increasingly skeptical of its claims that it didn’t know about the risks.
What This Means for Families
For families like the Casarettos, these verdicts provide resources to cover medical care, lost wages, and end-of-life expenses—though they cannot restore what mesothelioma takes.
For the broader patient community, the verdicts signal that evidence matters. When companies knowingly expose consumers to carcinogens and conceal that knowledge, juries are willing to hold them accountable.