A Minnesota jury awarded $65.5 million on Friday to Anna Jean Houghton Carley, a 37-year-old mother of three, who claimed that long-term use of Johnson & Johnson's talcum products exposed her to asbestos and contributed to her developing mesothelioma, a rare and aggressive cancer affecting the lungs.
The verdict came after a 13-day trial at Ramsey County District Court, where Carley's legal team argued that the company sold and promoted talc-based products despite knowing they could be contaminated with asbestos.
Her attorneys emphasized that her family had not been warned about the potential risks associated with using the products during her childhood.
Johnson & Johnson removed its talc-based powders from US shelves in 2020 and ceased global sales in 2023 amid mounting lawsuits, NYPost reported.
Carley's attorney framed the case as a pursuit of truth and accountability, highlighting concerns beyond just financial compensation.
Johnson & Johnson, however, maintains that its baby powder is safe, free from asbestos, and does not cause cancer.
Minnesota jury says Johnson & Johnson owes $65.5 million to woman with cancer who used talcum powder https://t.co/aEF3EkeF06 pic.twitter.com/vbE8fjy8F5
— New York Post (@nypost) December 20, 2025
Fresh Verdicts Deepen Scrutiny of Johnson & Johnson
The company has confirmed it will appeal the ruling, with legal representatives expressing confidence that an appellate court may overturn the decision.
This Minnesota case is part of a larger, ongoing legal battle over the safety of Johnson & Johnson's talc products, including Baby Powder and Shower to Shower body powder.
Earlier this month, a Los Angeles jury awarded $40 million to two women who claimed ovarian cancer from the products.
According to AP, in October, a California jury ordered the company to pay $966 million to a family whose loved one died of mesothelioma, allegedly linked to asbestos-contaminated talc.
The series of verdicts has intensified scrutiny on Johnson & Johnson's practices, as plaintiffs argue the company failed to inform consumers of known risks.
Despite decades of studies cited by the company to defend the safety of its products, courts have increasingly sided with individuals reporting serious health consequences.
Originally published on vcpost.com
