A Massachusetts jury has awarded $42.6 million to the family of Paul Lovell, a Melrose man who developed mesothelioma after decades of using Johnson & Johnson’s talc-based baby powder and Shower to Shower products.
For families like the Lovells, this verdict underscores a growing recognition of talc products’ hidden risks, offering financial support amid profound loss and validating years of anguish from asbestos exposure in everyday items. Paul Lovell and his wife Kathryn filed suit in 2021, alleging he inhaled asbestos fibers from J&J’s contaminated talc, which the company concealed for decades without warning consumers. The Suffolk Superior Court jury agreed, finding J&J liable for negligence and failure to disclose known hazards.
This case fits a pattern of massive 2025 verdicts against J&J, spotlighting asbestos contamination in talc mined from deposits where the mineral naturally occurs. Jurors determined that asbestos fragments—not talc itself—triggered Paul’s mesothelioma, a rare cancer almost exclusively linked to the fiber. Massachusetts courts delivered earlier wins too: In June 2025, a Suffolk County jury awarded $8 million to 84-year-old Janice Paluzzi for similar claims involving J&J baby powder. Since summer 2025, Massachusetts alone has seen over $50 million awarded to mesothelioma patients from J&J talc use.
Nationwide, the toll mounts. A December 22, 2025, Baltimore jury hit J&J with a record $1.5 billion, including $59.8 million compensatory, for Cherie Craft’s peritoneal mesothelioma after lifelong baby powder use. Other 2025 awards include $65.5 million to a Minnesota mother of three with pleural mesothelioma, $966 million to a California woman’s family, and $40 million to two ovarian cancer plaintiffs. As of January 2026, 67,000+ lawsuits pend in the U.S.’s largest multidistrict litigation (MDL) against J&J, alleging ovarian cancer, mesothelioma, and more from Baby Powder and Shower-to-Shower.
Plaintiffs’ experts emphasize settled science: asbestos causes mesothelioma, and J&J products tested positive for it historically. Attorney Brian Kenney, who secured Paluzzi’s verdict, dismissed J&J’s “junk science” defense as baseless, citing internal company knowledge. Boston litigator Victoria M. Santoro noted jurors’ anger at the pattern: “When it’s verdict after verdict… jurors are angry.”
J&J vows an immediate appeal, as in prior cases like Craft’s, maintaining its talc was asbestos-free, safe, and pulled due to market trends, not safety. Appeals could reduce awards, but consistent losses may push settlement talks; a mediator was appointed for ovarian cancer cases in July 2025.
Patients and families facing mesothelioma diagnoses should consult specialists promptly, as early intervention and support resources remain critical regardless of legal outcomes. With verdicts piling up into 2026, this saga signals stronger accountability for consumer product risks.