3,500 New Talcum Powder Cancer Lawsuits Set To Be Filed in UK

Attorneys in the United Kingdom say they will file about 3,500 talcum powder cancer lawsuits later this month, involving claims on behalf of women who developed ovarian cancer, peritoneal cancer and mesothelioma following use of Johnson & Johnson products.

The claims raised allegations similar to those presented in tens of thousands of Baby Powder lawsuits and Shower to Shower lawsuits already filed against Johnson & Johnson in the U.S., pointing to evidence that the manufacturer has failed to warn women that using the talcum-based powders on their genitals could increase their risk of cancer. Lawyers filed notice of their intention to file the talcum powder lawsuits in the U.K. in November 2024.

The U.S. litigation has been ongoing since 2016, and already resulted in a number of massive jury verdicts that ordered Johnson & Johnson to pay billions in damages to certain women, for placing profits before consumer safety, by withholding information about the known risks associated with their popular products. The company is currently trying to resolve those claims through a controversial bankruptcy plan, involving a $9 billion talcum powder settlement offer.

According to a February 4 report in The Guardian, the emerging litigation in the U.K. is expected to involve 3,500 women represented by lawyers, who indicate lawsuits will be filed later this month, alleging that Johnson & Johnson knew about the risks of cancer, and the potential for asbestos contamination, for decades, but took no actions to address the situation.

Injuries listed in the U.K. litigation include mesothelioma, ovarian cancer, Fallopian tube cancer and peritoneal cancer.

Following the announcement in November 2024 of the women’s intent to file, under U.K. rules Johnson & Johnson had until the end of last year to respond to a letter announcing the lawsuit, after which the cases could be officially filed with the U.K. High Court.

At the time the lawsuit was first announced, U.K. attorneys indicated they anticipated filing only about 1,900 complaints, with potentially 4,000 more clients likely to sign on in the future.

U.S. Talcum Powder Lawsuit Bankruptcy Filing

Given Johnson & Johnson’s inability to successfully defend the safety of talcum powder in a number of jury trials, the company has faced increasing pressure in recent years to settle the litigation. However, rather than attempting to negotiate individual talcum powder settlements with women diagnosed with ovarian cancer, Johnson & Johnson has repeatedly tried to force the litigation into the U.S. bankruptcy system, by transferring all the liability it faces for failing to warn consumers about the risks associated with talc products into a subsidiary, which would then declare bankruptcy.

This maneuver, often referred to as the “Texas two-step,” has twice been rejected by federal judges, who found that the company did not face a level of financial distress that came anywhere near requiring a bankruptcy to address.

In September, after proposing an $8 billion talcum powder settlement offer, which it claimed has the approval of more than 75% of claimants, Johnson & Johnson once again proposed resolving the claims through a bankruptcy filing, to prevent any further litigation being pursued in the future. The company later increased the amount by another $1 billion to sweeten the deal.

Last week, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Christopher Lopez in Texas heard arguments for and against the talcum powder bankruptcy settlement plan, including objections from both the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Both agencies claim approval of the bankruptcy deal was offered in “bad faith” and will mean they will not be reimbursed for healthcare provided to plaintiffs through programs such as Medicaid and Medicare. In addition, plaintiffs’ attorneys also called on Judge Lopez to reject the plan, so that they can pursue their own cases separately.

Johnson & Johnson is expected to respond to the objections next month. It is unclear when Judge Lopez will render a final decision.