St. Louis Jury Awards $4.69 Billion to 22 Women Over Asbestos-Laced Talcum Powder

For decades, Johnson and Johnson marketed its talcum-based baby powder to women as a safe, everyday hygiene product. Twenty-two women claimed the company knew better. Internal documents presented at trial showed that J and J officials had been aware for more than 30 years that at least trace amounts of asbestos had been detected in various batches of talc used in its powder, yet the company continued selling the products without adequate warnings.

All 22 plaintiffs were diagnosed with ovarian cancer, which they attributed to long-term use of Johnson's Baby Powder and Shower to Shower. Six of the women had died before the case reached the courthouse. Their family members, including spouses, joined the suit as representatives of their estates. Gail Ingham, a Missouri resident, was among the lead plaintiffs, and the case bore her name.

The trial ran for approximately six weeks before St. Louis Circuit Court Judge Rex Burlison. The plaintiff team was led by W. Mark Lanier of the Lanier Law Firm and included Thomas K. Neill of Gray, Ritter and Graham, P.C., and Eric D. Holland of the Holland Law Firm. On July 12, 2018, a jury of six men and six women voted unanimously in favor of the plaintiffs, awarding $25 million in compensatory damages per plaintiff, totaling $550 million. The jury then returned $4.14 billion in punitive damages, split between J and J and its consumer subsidiary, bringing the total to $4.69 billion.

The verdict stood as the largest in Missouri history and one of the largest product-liability verdicts in U.S. history at the time. On appeal, the Missouri Court of Appeals for the Eastern District reversed the judgment as to seventeen non-resident plaintiffs on personal-jurisdiction grounds, reducing the pool of compensable claimants. Thomas K. Neill remained on the case through the appeal, representing the surviving plaintiffs alongside Holland's firm.

The case drew national attention for the internal documents it surfaced. Plaintiff attorneys argued those records showed J and J prioritized market share over consumer safety, a finding the jury credited in its punitive award.