J&J offers $5.5bn settlement in lawsuits claiming talc link to cancer - Al Jazeera

Settlement resolves thousands of US lawsuits, with a record UK case against the company under way. xwhatsapp-strokecopylinkgoogleAdd Al Jazeera on GoogleinfoA bottle of Johnson and Johnson Baby Powder By ReutersPublished On 28 Jul 202628 Jul 2026Johnson & Johnson (J&J) has agreed to pay $5.5bn to settle tens of thousands of lawsuits in the United States that allege its discontinued talc-based baby powder caused ovarian cancer. The pharmaceutical giant made the announcement on Monday, saying it covers about 69,000 cases in US federal and state courts, accounting for 99.75 percent of outstanding talc-related cases in the country. The settlement will only be final once it is accepted by 95 percent of the claimants in state or federal courts. Talc is a soft mineral and was once a staple ingredient in cosmetics and baby products, but its use has declined as concerns rose over its links to cancer. In 2024, the World Health Organization classified talc as “probably carcinogenic to humans”. J&J maintains that there is no evidence that talc causes cancer, but it stopped selling talc-based baby powder in the US in 2020 and worldwide in 2023. In 2016, a US jury ordered J&J to pay $72m to the family of a woman who died of ovarian cancer, the first such case related to the use of the mineral in the country. Though the case was overturned a year later, claims against the company have multiplied since, with juries across the US awarding the plaintiffs. Erik Haas, J&J’s litigation head, said the agreement lets J&J “put this matter behind it”. Lawyers representing the plaintiffs welcomed the settlement as a good resolution to a decade-long court battle. The deal does not cover the United Kingdom, where the largest product liability case in UK history – covering more than 7,000 potential claimants – is being adjudicated. Filed in October 2025, the UK case alleges that J&J knew that its talc could cause cancers, chiefly ovarian and mesothelioma, but continued to sell the product, a claim the company also denies. The case has since gone before the UK High Court.