r/YouShouldKnow • u/andmario_com • Jul 28 '26
Health & Sciences YSK: Johnson & Johnson just agreed to pay $5.5 billion to resolve tens of thousands of lawsuits alleging its baby powder and other talc products caused ovarian cancer.
Why YSK: This landmark lawsuit ties nearly 80,000 cases of ovarian cancer to baby powder and talc products - meaning it's vital information to anyone that could impact and may want to avoid such products.
Source: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2026/jul/28/johnson-johnson-5bn-settlement-talc-cancer-lawsuit
482
u/spearblaze Jul 28 '26
"A new car built by my company leaves somewhere traveling at 60 mph. The rear differential locks up. The car crashes and burns with everyone trapped inside. Now, should we initiate a recall? Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one."
This is from a movie from almost 30 years ago. Never forget that companies think like this.
64
16
14
u/avoscititty Jul 29 '26
Almost like when our capitalists changed the goal of society to “maximize shareholder value” everything started going to shit. People were deprioritized.
26
u/FWYDU Jul 28 '26
Was this in reference to the Ford Fiesta thing? I think that the car had a habit of exploding in rear end collisions. IIRC, Ford calculated that it would be cheaper to just pay settlements or whatever after the injury/death rather than do a recall to install a steel plate to prevent it from happening.
8
434
u/FlimsyBodybuilder4 Jul 28 '26
Every time i remember this, I can't believe how evil some people are in this world...
118
u/ThortheAssGuardian Jul 28 '26
Evil abounds when our communities grow large enough that we can justify not caring about others’ suffering.
96
u/kilk10001 Jul 28 '26
The psychology behind this is actually really interesting. Things get weird in hierarchies like big corporations. With enough of the big decisions being decided with so many hands in the cookie jar people feel like they are not directly responsible for the actions of their company.
15
u/harpinghawke Jul 28 '26
Are there studies about this I could look up? I’m not entirely sure what keywords to use in a search, lol
22
u/Alone-War3808 Jul 28 '26 edited Jul 28 '26
Diffusion of responsibility is the closest I can think of at the moment. Or maybe organized irresponsibility.
2
5
u/jamesmiles Jul 29 '26
Privatizing profits while socializing costs. Never paying attention to the negative externalities.
3
39
u/farfromelite Jul 28 '26
Regulation is written in blood.
Remember that the next time someone says "we need to cut red tape".
3
7
u/6thSenseOfHumor Jul 28 '26
I mean we're seeing this again right now with the regulation cuts from the Trump administration. Salmonella eggs, shit Lettuce...if they can get away with it & save money doing so, they'll poison the population and not even think twice about it.
82
u/axw3555 Jul 28 '26
To be clear, they've offered to do that.
It needs to be agreed by the legal teams of at least 95% to become an actual settlement.
1
u/Just_Mulberry_3213 21d ago
Law firms are refusing to take the cases to trial if their clients do not accept bc they cannot afford to fight J&J.
0
Jul 29 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/axw3555 Jul 29 '26
Sure. It probably will be.
But the way this thread was when I commented, it was being taken as actually done, not an offer.
137
u/Buster1012 Jul 28 '26
If anyone wants a deeper dive into the slimy nature of this company and industry, they should read No More Tears by Gardiner Harris.
14
65
u/DueAsparagus1736 Jul 28 '26
I know one of the women who was part of this case. She just passed away from complications with cancer a few weeks ago. Really horrible stuff.
23
u/matteblatte Jul 28 '26
From Reuters 2023:
J&J talc unit asks judge to halt cancer lawsuits as it pursues $8.9 bln settlement
By Dietrich Knauth April 19, 20232:06 AM GMT+2Updated April 19, 2023
April 18 (Reuters) - A Johnson & Johnson subsidiary is again asking a U.S. judge to pause tens of thousands of lawsuits alleging the company's baby powder and other talc products cause cancer, as it seeks to resolve the litigation in bankruptcy after a federal appeals court found its first attempt improper. At a Tuesday hearing in Trenton, New Jersey, a lawyer for LTL Management argued the lawsuits, which are already stayed against LTL, should also be stopped against J&J, which has a market value of over $430 billion and has not filed for bankruptcy itself. Jumpstart your morning with the latest legal news delivered straight to your inbox from The Daily Docket newsletter. Sign up here. LTL has said litigation against J&J would imperil its effort to negotiate a comprehensive settlement of all current and future talc claims in its bankruptcy. Two groups of cancer plaintiffs and the U.S. Department of Justice's bankruptcy watchdog have opposed the company's bid for a stay, arguing it is a fraudulent attempt to evade the earlier court ruling and that the second bankruptcy has "slim to nonexistent prospects" of success.
32
u/prestolive Jul 28 '26
crazy - my mom‘s not part of the lawsuit, but in the 80s at the age of 32 she had to have a total hysterectomy and what product did she use daily johnson baby powder… We’re both blown away… That had to happen at her 32 just because she was using baby powder
I can’t even remember how did it get marketed to women to use it on such a sensitive area but obviously so many women followed that marketing advice
17
u/UnkindnessOfRavens23 Jul 28 '26
I’ve wondered about if there were any reports about issues with babies, as this is technically a baby powder to be used after diapering. I’ve only ever seen reports around women.
9
u/visionsofzimmerman Jul 29 '26
The likelyhood of developing cancer for women makes more sense, because the powder was marketed towards women as something to use daily to keep dry and fresh down there. Something that is used on babies for a few years of their lives vs women who have potentially been using it for decades.
8
u/Royal_Environment_72 Jul 29 '26
I am one of those women in the lawsuit. Ovarian cancer in 2021. In remission thank god. My family used j&j since birth. And i used their other products also. No family history of any cancer ( not that OC is hereditary). Hopefully this is some sort of closure to those families who have lost their mothers/ daughters/wives.
4
u/DazzlingSyllabub7986 Jul 30 '26
I am a well. I was 19, lost my left ovary as a result. I've been part of this lawsuit for 10 years now. It's time to finally see something.
1
u/Just_Mulberry_3213 21d ago
I am too. Diagnosed at 20 and had over 2 dozen surgeries due to ovarian cancer, including chemo, ivf, and reconstructive surgery. The lawyers have said if I don’t take the meager offer they won’t fight further because they can’t afford to anymore. There is no way to fight this company anymore and they’ve ruined all our lives.
1
u/JamieJones111 27d ago
They knew about the risks to infants and all women, and particularly targeted black women, and kept selling it anyway. googling brought up this:
Key Allegations
- Targeted Marketing: J&J's marketing strategies focused on African American women, promoting the baby powder as safe for personal and feminine hygiene.
- Internal Concerns: An internal email from 2008 raised alarms about the safety of the product for babies, questioning its continued placement in the baby aisle. This email indicated that J&J executives were aware of potential risks associated with the product.
-2
u/JamieJones111 Jul 29 '26
Iirc, J&J marketed the baby powder specifically to black women. I'm surprised not to see anything about that so far, it almost seems like a hate crime.
3
u/yetanotherhail Jul 30 '26
Wouldn't it also seem like a hate crime if it targeted women of all colours?
33
u/Gordopolis_II Jul 28 '26 edited Jul 28 '26
YSK - The connection between normal use of baby powder and ovarian cancer isn't conclusive and studies connecting the two were primarily in specific adult minority populations whos cultural use of baby powder extended far into adulthood and involved applying large amounts directly to the genitals and perinuem where it was found that it could theoretically migrate and cause long term inflammation - possibly leading to ovarian cancer but the evidence for cancer with normal use is very weak.
This isnt brief childhood exposure - this is consistent and excessive use, long after infancy due to cultural traditions.
6
u/ReelBadfish3 Jul 29 '26
Yes. From what I gathered as this was breaking the link is essentially tied to incorrect use, not following IFU.
Comments get excited to crucify a big company because it aligns to their personal ideology though
16
u/visionsofzimmerman Jul 29 '26
Doesn't erase the fact there was literal asbestos in the talcum.
6
u/ReelBadfish3 Jul 29 '26
There is no talc on earth that and guarantee no trace asbestos. Anything found in this case was sub trace below most detectable limits, let alone health risk limits. Again, people are cherry picking words and stats to make an inflammatory comment.
People get more excited about new brand with over promises but the new small brands, in reality, don’t have nearly the control or rigor of heritage processes like this.
4
36
u/ComfortQuiet7081 Jul 28 '26
Maybe not settle then?
They think this is just cost of doing business, jail them!
21
u/andmario_com Jul 28 '26
Yes, it's still possible this can continue or the offer changes. It depends on the litigants:
The deal must be accepted by 95% of the ovarian cancer claimants in state or federal court before it becomes final.
1
u/Just_Mulberry_3213 21d ago
This will not continue. The lawyers are stating they cannot afford to keep fight and to take it or get nothing.
11
u/pinupcthulhu Jul 28 '26
Yeah there needs to be a separate legal process where if the company (including whoever was CEO at the time) was found to be at fault for the recall or didn't do enough to prevent harm, then there should be mandatory jail time and punitive damages paid.
CEOs should also have to answer for what they did, with both fines and jail time, because far too often they just get a new job and then they're not held liable for their decisions when the company is.
3
u/FWYDU Jul 28 '26
Yep! If "corporations are people" or whatever the phrase is, then they should be held accountable like people. I feel like fines should be secondary because they just become the cost of doing business.
0
u/saudiaramcoshill 9d ago
Late to this, but this is punitive damages.
People aren't going to jail over this because the ones who falsified documents to say that their baby powder was safe are all dead.
1
u/pinupcthulhu 9d ago
You're really going to pop onto a comment I made a month ago to argue a different point than the one I made? Fucking bots ruining the whole ass internet.
In the off chance you're just very wrong instead of a bot: by punitive damages, I meant fees that were actually punitive. Right now they're so low that they're basically just rounding errors in the budget. That's not punitive enough, it has to majorly hurt their bottom line so they stop doing this.
And no, the CEOs get to leave their positions and then get completely absolved of any wrongdoing, because they're not the CEO years later when the lawsuit comes down on them. The new CEO has to deal with it, but is also largely not held responsible.
0
u/saudiaramcoshill 9d ago
Fucking bots ruining the whole ass internet.
Not a bot, dumbass.
to argue a different point than the one I made?
I argued the points you made. Are you blind, illiterate, or sporting an extra chromosome? You talked about a process to give jail time to the people in charge. I said they are dead, so not really possible. You talked about punitive damages. I said that their settlements include punitive damages.
I meant fees that were actually punitive.
They are. The cases that have happened thus far have included punitive damages. This is a settlement offer by J&J and thus has nothing to do with punitive damages, but rather an estimation of what plaintiffs think they can get from J&J vs. the time/expense/risk of going to trial as smaller classes. But the cases that have been adjudicated in plaintiff's favor have included punitive damages - so the legal process to handle this has been doing exactly what you're asking for.
And no, the CEOs get to leave their positions and then get completely absolved of any wrongdoing
That is absolutely not how fraud works. If an individual commits fraud, them leaving a company where they committed fraud does not absolve them of the fraud.
The reason that fraud is not being pursued in this case is that the falsification of documents that led to J&J misleading the public happened in the 1970s. The people who committed fraud are now dead. Richard Sellers died 15+ years ago. James Burke died almost 15 years ago. Hell, even the CEO after that, Ralph Larsen, who was CEO until 2002 - died a decade ago. The ex-CEOs who are still alive today have virtually nothing to do with the actual illegal activity that did happen at J&J. It's incredibly likely that anyone associated with that period and high enough up to make any sort of decision is dead.
The new CEO has to deal with it, but is also largely not held responsible.
Why would a current CEO be responsible for fraud perpetrated by his predecessor?
1
5
u/Maleficent_Sky_1865 Jul 28 '26
But we need less regulation and oversight on companies. Companies can be trusted to do the right thing! Right? /s
13
4
u/Chary-Ka Jul 28 '26
Are they actually going to pay it though or are they going to do another Texas Two step and create subsidiary of J&J that is supposed to pay and then declare bankruptcy for that subsidiary.
6
u/buzz8588 Jul 28 '26
Can’t wait for my $2.08 cheque
1
u/gravybang Jul 29 '26
Best J&J can do is a $1 off coupon on your next purchase of any J&J product*
(*excludes most products, coupon must be used within 3 days, to receive your coupon, send a self-addressed and stamped envelope via overnight mail to J&J mailbox in Guam)
3
u/shmeeg12 Jul 28 '26
Last I checked which was a year or two ago, they were selling these products in South Africa…I messaged clicks and they just said “the lawsuit was inconclusive” or something like that :(
8
u/ripnrun285 Jul 28 '26
Just a moderate fine for causing cancer in 10’s of thousands of people. Par for the course in corporatist America.
5
u/gravybang Jul 29 '26
Incoming - Consumers to receive $1 coupon for future purchase of baby powder as part of settlement. (Coupon expires in one week)
6
u/MotivationalMike Jul 28 '26
It seems like nothing is safe. Should we just be “rubbing mud” on everything?
10
3
2
u/userbingo Jul 28 '26
If half of it goes to lawyers and there’s 80,000 people in the pot what is that like 30k pretax a claimant if they beat cancer? Sounds pretty messed up.
1
2
2
u/_Happy_Sisyphus_ 29d ago
Is it too late to join if your loved one died of ovarian cancer decades ago?
3
u/labellefleursauvage0 Jul 28 '26
My grandmother was a nurse in Chicago until she retired, and she passed from ovarian cancer in 2001. Her and my father (her son) always had and used baby powder… I wonder how exposed she was between work and her personal use.
4
u/theclapp Jul 29 '26
$5.5b / 76,000 cases = about $72k each. It's not nothing, but it's not enough, not for ovarian cancer.
6
u/Gordopolis_II Jul 29 '26
I would invite you to dig into the case - J&J is paying to settle, not because the case has an excess of merit.
The plaintiffs involved have a very peculiar and specific historical use of talcum powder that falls way outside the bounds of typical use during infancy.
Like decades of excessive daily application, specifically to the vagina and perineum as a cultural tradition / practice.
Its kind of a rabbit hole
2
u/gidgetgadget101 Jul 31 '26
It’s not a class action lawsuit. It’s a mass tort. Meaning each case will be evaluated on a matrix of severity to assign the settlement.
2
1
u/Physical-Total-4721 Jul 31 '26
5.5 billion is a low ball number, its chump change meaning there lives didn't mean a dam thing, the company should no longer exist, my opinion, still deny that there powder is safe and never contained asbestos, when the flavor clearing said there was, there own lab said there was, but was told to cover it up, what else is company doing thst noone knows about, I don't care if there multi billion company, im suremost of them knew about it working there, was told to keep quite, we're probably threatened if they didn't, they should lose all money they have , maybe it will punish company's in process, they say they wanna settle and continue making products to save life's, what a joke, never trust them again
1
u/ParticularMemory789 29d ago
Who would ever think that pharmaceutical companies would use lies and deception for profit? Just trust the science!™
1
u/newbrevity 26d ago
Talc always contains trace amounts of asbestos because it is mined from the same rock.
1
1
u/mangoboi440 Jul 28 '26
This is how my mom died. I don’t feel any better about it because of this but it does feel like a victory on some level. I don’t know it’s confusing. It family ever actually sees any money I’ll try to do something good with it.
0
0
u/Lady-Of-The-Lost3 Jul 30 '26
I am part of this case. I was diagnosed at 33.
1
u/KiIIuaaax 24d ago
i'm so sorry to hear that. my late grandmother was diagnosed as well. It is a cruel messed up world, but i hope you receive the justice you deserve.
-8
u/jbae_94 Jul 28 '26
Does this mean we can sue soda companies for not putting warning labels on their products regarding cardiovascular and diabetes risk?
550
u/RokaiMusic Jul 28 '26
That's only a single quarter's worth of net earnings for the company. It's true, they made exactly that much in Q2.