Johnson & Johnson Now Faces Talcum Powder Cancer Lawsuits in U.K.

Talcum powder lawsuit will be sent to the U.K. High Court in January 2025, about the same time hearings will begin over J&J’s third attempt to resolve the U.S. litigation through bankruptcy.

As Johnson & Johnson continues attempts to settle tens of thousands of talcum powder cancer lawsuits through a controversial bankruptcy process in the U.S., it appears that litigation over the same issues is just now ramping up in the United Kingdom.

About two thousand woman are preparing to file a class action lawsuit against the manufacturer in England and Wales, according to various media reports, raising allegations similar to those being pursued in Baby Powder lawsuits and Shower-to-Shower lawsuits brought by women throughout the U.S. over the past decade, claiming that Johnson & Johnson has failed to adequately warn that asbestos in its talc products may increase the risk of ovarian cancer and mesothelioma.

Johnson & Johnson currently faces about 62,000 such product liability lawsuits in the United States, most involving claims filed by women who developed ovarian cancer after years of using talc-based powder around their genitals for feminine hygiene purposes.

The litigation has been ongoing since 2016, following the publication of studies linking ovarian cancer to talcum powder use by adult women, and several U.S. juries have ordered Johnson & Johnson to pay billions in damages for placing profits before consumer safety, by withholding information about the known risks associated with their popular products.

In the U.K. the talcum powder ovarian cancer lawsuits are being pursued by a firm known as KP Law, which indicates it has about 2,000 women ready to file lawsuits, with potentially 4,000 more clients to be signed up in the future. Injuries listed in the U.K. litigation include mesothelioma, ovarian cancer, Fallopian tube cancer and peritoneal cancer.

Under the rules of that country, Johnson & Johnson has until the end of this year to respond to a letter announcing the lawsuit, after which the case will be officially filed with the U.K. High Court.

Johnson & Johnson has indicated it intends to fight the U.K. litigation, despite its recent attempts to settle similar allegations raised in the U.S.

Third U.S. Talcum Powder Bankruptcy Attempt

In September, Johnson & Johnson announced an $8 billion talcum powder lawsuit settlement offer, as part of an attempt to force both current and future claims filed by women nationwide through the U.S. bankruptcy system.

As part of the offer, known as a “Texas Two Step,” Johnson & Johnson created a new subsidiary known as Red River Talc LLC, and transferred all liabilities it faced for failing to warn about the talcum powder cancer risks to this new entity, which then filed for Chapter 11 protection in U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas.

This is Johnson & Johnson’s third attempt at forcing the talcum powder cancer litigation through bankruptcy, with two prior filings rejected by the courts, since the company has billions in assets available to resolve the litigation. However, the company now claims that it has the approval of a substantial portion of the women presenting claims.

The bankruptcy maneuver has been heavily criticized by legal experts, judges, and now, the Justice Department, as an abuse of the protections that are intended for individuals or entities facing financial distress. Some plaintiffs who were most seriously injured have also opposed the move, arguing that it artificially caps the financial damage the parent company may be required to pay, and may result in women receiving just pennies on the dollar for what they are truly owed in damages.

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Christopher Lopez is overseeing the process in Texas, and announced last month that a consolidated hearing will be held on January 27, at which point he will hear objections to the talc bankruptcy plan.

Those objections include allegations that Johnson & Johnson’s purported support by 75% of claimants for the bankruptcy deal is not legitimate, as well as claims by the U.S. Department of Justice that this filing was made “in bad faith,” as part of an attempt to abuse the bankruptcy system.