Court Recommendation Allows Key Expert Testimony in Johnson & Johnson Talc Litigation

A major development has emerged in the ongoing litigation against Johnson & Johnson (J&J) involving allegations that its talc-based Johnson’s Baby Powder caused ovarian cancer. A court-appointed special master has recommended allowing plaintiffs to present expert testimony—an important step forward for tens of thousands of women seeking accountability for their injuries.

The recommendation, released in New Jersey just hours before J&J announced strong financial results for 2025, could significantly affect the company’s legal strategy and the trajectory of more than 67,000 consolidated lawsuits.

Expert Testimony Backed by Scientific Evidence

Retired U.S. District Judge Freda Wolfson—who previously presided over the talc multidistrict litigation—submitted a detailed recommendation supporting the admission of certain plaintiffs’ expert witnesses.

In her 658-page report, Judge Wolfson noted that epidemiological research shows a statistically significant association between genital talc use and ovarian cancer. She also found that plaintiffs’ experts relied on accepted, reliable scientific methods in forming their opinions.

The recommendation would allow  juries to hear evidence that has long been central to plaintiffs’ claims:

• The safety of J&J’s talc products,
• Links between talc use and ovarian cancer, and
• Potential asbestos contamination in products once marketed as safe for daily use.

While Judge Wolfson supported allowing plaintiffs’ experts to testify, she also noted that J&J may counter with its own expert witnesses—setting the stage for a complex scientific battle.

J&J Pushes Back

J&J’s Chief Legal Officer expressed disagreement with the recommendation. The company argues that the special master misapplied updated federal evidentiary rules adopted in 2023, which J&J claims were designed to prevent unreliable expert opinions from reaching juries.

J&J continues to deny any evidence that its talc products contained asbestos or could cause cancer. Although the company has won some cases at trial, several high-profile verdicts—including a $1.56 billion award in Baltimore in late 2025—show that juries are receptive to plaintiffs’ evidence.

Despite the company’s repeated attempts to resolve the litigation through bankruptcy, courts have rejected these efforts. Litigation continues in jurisdictions nationwide.

Why This Recommendation Matters

For plaintiffs, the ability to present qualified scientific experts is often the turning point in toxic exposure and product liability cases. This recommendation:

✔ Strengthens Plaintiffs’ Ability to Tell Their Stories

By allowing credible scientific testimony, juries can hear how talc exposure may have contributed to their cancers.

✔ Places Additional Pressure on J&J

With over 67,000 cases pending, consistent rulings that favor expert admissibility raise the stakes for the company.

✔ Reinforces Prior Rulings

The special master’s view aligns with earlier decisions permitting similar testimony—further validating the scientific research connecting talc use and ovarian cancer.

✔ Provides Momentum for Women Seeking Justice

Victims’ attorneys called the decision a “major victory,” particularly for those who have fought for years against delays and procedural roadblocks.

Brayton Purcell LLP Stands with Injured Consumers

As a national leader in toxic exposure litigation, Brayton Purcell LLP has spent decades fighting for individuals harmed by dangerous products—including those contaminated with asbestos. Decisions like this one help level the playing field for consumers seeking justice against powerful corporations.

If you or a loved one developed ovarian cancer or mesothelioma after using talc-based products, you may be entitled to compensation for medical costs, lost wages, and pain and distress.

Reach out to Brayton Purcell LLP, our attorneys are here to help.

Call (800) 361-2417 or contact us online for a free, confidential case evaluation.