Weekly Mass Torts Bulletin 2024-April-8
J&J Settles $6B Baby Powder Suit for $75M
Johnson & Johnson has agreed to a $75 million settlement with Mississippi to resolve a consumer protection lawsuit related to its talc-based baby powder.
The settlement, confirmed by sources familiar with the matter, comes ahead of a non-jury trial scheduled next month in Jackson, Mississippi. Mississippi had sought up to $6 billion in damages over Johnson & Johnson's alleged failure to warn consumers about potential cancer risks associated with the powder over nearly five decades.
The settlement follows a lengthy legal battle and adds to Johnson & Johnson's efforts to address mounting litigation surrounding its talc-based products. The company has faced numerous lawsuits from consumers claiming it concealed the risks of its baby powder, leading to concerns among investors and affecting its stock price.
In response to the settlement, Johnson & Johnson's worldwide vice president of litigation stated that the company is committed to achieving a comprehensive resolution of the talc litigation. However, the settlement with Mississippi was not part of the $700 million agreement reached in January with 42 US states investigating similar claims.
Mississippi's lawsuit sought not only financial penalties but also requested a court order for Johnson & Johnson to include warnings on baby powder sold in the state. Despite Johnson & Johnson's stance that its products are safe and appropriately marketed, the company has faced significant legal challenges and public scrutiny over the issue.
Johnson & Johnson's talc litigation includes tens of thousands of cases from former users alleging links between the powder and cancer. While the company has settled some cases, others are ongoing, with numerous suits consolidated before a federal judge in New Jersey.
The legal proceedings have highlighted disagreements over the evidence concerning the alleged cancer risks of Johnson & Johnson's talc-based products. Despite the company's assertions and previous legal battles, the resolution of these cases remains a complex and ongoing challenge for Johnson & Johnson.
Valsartan Recall Lawsuit Set for Trial
Years after the initiation of Valsartan recalls, the U.S. District Judge overseeing lawsuits filed by individuals harmed by tainted versions of the blood pressure drug has been approved the first case to proceed to trial.
Over 1,200 valsartan recall lawsuits have been lodged against manufacturers and distributors, alleging that alterations to the generic drug manufacturing process resulted in the distribution of pills containing elevated levels of harmful chemicals like N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA) and N-nitrosodiethylamine (NDEA), known to elevate the risk of various cancers and other injuries.
Centralizing the litigation before a U.S. District Judge in the District of New Jersey since 2019, the parties have been preparing for early "bellwether" trials to assess how juries might respond to consistent evidence and testimony across numerous claims. However, given the prolonged latency period for certain cancers associated with NDMA in valsartan, new lawsuits continue to emerge.
Originally slated to commence on March 18, the first valsartan trial was postponed by a text order entered on the docket on March 8, without a subsequent explanation or new trial date being established. Subsequently, on March 26, the Judge denied the manufacturers' motion for summary judgment in the trial case, permitting claims for breach of express warranty, consumer protection laws, and fraud to proceed. Additionally, the Judge declined to preclude plaintiffs from seeking punitive damages against the manufacturers and distributors, potentially resulting in significantly higher damages to hold the manufacturers accountable for disregarding consumer health and safety.
Should the parties fail to make headway toward resolving the litigation or implementing a Valsartan recall settlements program, it is anticipated that the Judge will proceed with a series of "bellwether" trials. Following this, he may consider remanding numerous claims back to U.S. District Courts across the nation for separate trial dates in the future.