From 1960s internal memos about asbestos contamination to billion-dollar verdicts and a landmark Lancet retraction in 2026 — a comprehensive chronology of how the talcum powder scandal unfolded over six decades.

The 1950s and 1960s: Early Warnings Ignored

The roots of the talc scandal stretch back more than sixty years. In 1957 and 1958, reports from a consulting laboratory indicated that talc from Johnson & Johnson's Italian supplier contained contaminants described as "fibrous" and "acicular" tremolite — a mineral that can occur as asbestos. By 1967, J&J had discovered traces of two minerals that can occur as asbestos in its Vermont talc mine.

A 1969 internal memo is particularly damning. It stated that until tremolite — one of six types of asbestos — was proven to have no adverse effects, its use should be minimised. The memo noted that talc could no longer be guaranteed to be safe for babies. Despite this internal acknowledgment of risk, no warnings were issued to the public, and talcum powder continued to be marketed as a trusted household product for families across the world.

The 1970s: Industry Influence Over Science

In 1971, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) launched an inquiry into asbestos in talcum powders after New York City's environmental protection chief revealed that two brands of cosmetic talc appeared to contain asbestos. Despite publicly denying any contamination, internal J&J testing between 1972 and 1975 found asbestos in its talc supplies.

In 1977, a commentary appeared in The Lancet arguing against government-mandated asbestos testing for cosmetic talc. This unsigned paper would be cited for nearly fifty years as scientific authority supporting talc safety. It was only in March 2026 that historians discovered the author was Francis J C Roe, a paid J&J consultant who gave the company advance editorial control over the piece — a conflict of interest never disclosed to The Lancet.

The 1980s and 1990s: Research Builds

In 1982, Daniel Cramer at Harvard published a landmark epidemiological study showing a clear association between talcum powder use in the genital area and ovarian cancer risk. This was the first major peer-reviewed study to draw a direct connection, and multiple subsequent studies over the following decades confirmed and strengthened the finding across different populations.

Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, the body of scientific evidence continued to grow. Researchers established biological plausibility — demonstrating that talc particles could migrate through the reproductive tract to the ovaries, and that asbestos fibres in contaminated talc could exert a direct carcinogenic effect. Despite this growing scientific consensus, Johnson & Johnson continued to market its talcum powder products without warnings.

2009–2016: The First Lawsuits

In 2009, the first lawsuit was filed against Johnson & Johnson alleging that its talc products caused a woman's ovarian cancer. This marked the beginning of what would become one of the largest mass tort litigations in history. By 2016, J&J suffered its first significant legal defeat when a jury returned a $72 million verdict in favour of a claimant. This verdict sent shockwaves through the industry and opened the floodgates for thousands more claims.

2018: The Landmark Verdict

The year 2018 proved to be a turning point in the talc scandal. A Missouri jury ordered Johnson & Johnson to pay $4.69 billion to 22 women who claimed the company's talcum powder caused their ovarian cancer. Although the amount was later reduced on appeal, the sheer scale of the verdict demonstrated that juries were willing to hold J&J accountable. The case relied heavily on internal company documents showing that J&J had known about potential asbestos contamination for decades.

2020–2023: Product Withdrawal and Bankruptcy Attempts

In May 2020, facing mounting legal costs and public scrutiny, Johnson & Johnson stopped selling talc-based baby powder in the United States and Canada. In August 2022, the company announced it would phase out global sales entirely, transitioning to a cornstarch-based formula. Talc-based baby powder was discontinued worldwide in 2023 — a decision J&J attributed to declining sales, though it was widely interpreted as an acknowledgment of the product's risks.

During this same period, J&J pursued an aggressive legal strategy known as the "Texas Two-Step," attempting to use bankruptcy reorganisation to resolve all talc claims through a subsidiary. In January 2023, an appeals court rejected the first attempt, ruling the company had improperly offloaded lawsuits. In July 2023, a judge rejected the second attempt. The company would try a third time — and fail again — in 2025.

2024–2025: Regulatory Action and Settlement Rejection

In 2024, Johnson & Johnson reached a $700 million settlement with 43 US states and the District of Columbia to resolve allegations that it had misled consumers about the safety of its talc products, including failing to disclose potential asbestos contamination. While not an admission of liability, this settlement represented one of the largest regulatory actions in the talc scandal.

In April 2025, a bankruptcy judge dismissed J&J's third attempt to resolve talc claims through bankruptcy protection, ruling the company did not belong in bankruptcy proceedings. The judge also rejected the company's proposed $8 billion settlement, citing insufficient support from claimants and concerns about the adequacy of the amount. This marked the third time courts had struck down J&J's bankruptcy strategy. The company announced it would abandon this approach and face claims directly in court.

December 2025 brought a wave of devastating verdicts: $1.5 billion in Maryland for a mesothelioma case, $65.5 million in Minnesota for another mesothelioma victim, and $40 million in Los Angeles for two women with ovarian cancer. These awards demonstrated that juries showed no signs of fatigue in holding Johnson & Johnson accountable.

2026: The Reckoning Continues

As of March 2026, over 90,000 talcum powder lawsuits have been filed against Johnson & Johnson worldwide. In February 2026, a Philadelphia jury awarded $250,000 to the family of a woman who died from ovarian cancer after using J&J talc products.

March 2026 brought the bombshell Lancet retraction — the journal withdrew the 1977 unsigned commentary after historians David Rosner and Gerald Markowitz proved it was authored by a paid J&J consultant with undisclosed financial ties. This retraction dismantled a key piece of the scientific defence that the talc industry had relied upon for nearly half a century.

In Scotland, Jones Whyte is leading the first group action against Johnson & Johnson in the Court of Session, representing claimants including Helene Rose, a 67-year-old from Aberdeen diagnosed with Stage 4 ovarian cancer in 2024. Up to 3,000 people across the UK have joined the claim, with the action covering the period from 1965 to 2023. It is the first case of its kind in Scottish courts, and it marks a significant moment for UK claimants seeking justice.

What Happens Next

With bankruptcy protection no longer available, Johnson & Johnson faces the prospect of defending thousands of individual claims in court. The scientific evidence continues to strengthen, corporate documents continue to surface, and public awareness of the talc scandal grows with each verdict and revelation. For those in Scotland and the wider UK who believe they have been affected, the window to take action is open — but limitation periods apply. Contact Jones Whyte to discuss your circumstances.

This article is for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. If you believe you may have a claim, speak to our team.