News Alert

Andrew J. Kornblau, Randolph Portugal

A California state court has vacated a $950 million punitive-damages award against Johnson & Johnson (“J&J”) in a talc-mesothelioma case, Moore et al. v. Johnson & Johnson et al.

On March 13, 2026, Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Ruth Kwan granted J&J’s motion to set aside the punitive damages award to the family of Mae Moore, an 88-year-old California resident who died in 2021 from mesothelioma. The family alleged that Moore’s use of J&J’s talc-based baby powder exposed Moore to asbestos fibers that caused her cancer.

The jury had awarded $16 million in compensatory damages and $950 million in punitive damages, one of the largest punitive awards in a mesothelioma case. Judge Kwan found that plaintiffs failed to prove that J&J acted with malice or concealed known risks. The court concluded that the record did not establish that J&J “knew its products contained asbestos” or engaged in conduct warranting punitive damages.

1. JNOV as to Punitive Damages – Malice

In viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, Judge Kwan found that there was no clear and convincing evidence of malice. To prove J&J acted with malice plaintiff was required first to establish that J&J knew its products contained asbestos. In rejecting this finding, the court found that the undisputed evidence established that:

• “hundreds of test results showed no asbestos in Johnson’s Baby Powder”;
• “at all relevant times J&J was using [ ] TEM, the best available testing method to detect asbestos in talc”; and
• The limited studies claiming to find asbestos in Johnson’s Baby Powder “were retracted, could not be duplicated, or were otherwise debunked or questionable.”

The court further determined that even if plaintiff had proven that J&J knew of asbestos in its product, there was not clear and convincing evidence that “J&J knew that there was enough asbestos in its products to cause a high probability of injury.” In reaching this conclusion, the court found that the evidence established that:

• The amount of asbestos alleged to be in J&J’s product did not exceed the level believed to be safe by OSHA and the FDA.; and

Relevant epidemiology in the form of cohort studies of talc miners and millers found no relationship between talc exposure and cancer.

2. JNOV as to Fraudulent Concealment

Critical to the court’s analysis of the concealment claim was the lower standard of proof required for the plaintiff to prove this claim. As to this claim, and based on this lower burden of proof, the court held that there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find knowledge. Specifically, the court reasoned that based on 1991 Blount testing, wherein asbestos was reported as being found in J&J’s product, a jury could have inferred that J&J knew of asbestos in its products. The court also reasoned that in light of J&J’s zero tolerance policy, the jury could have concluded that J&J knew that even a small amount of asbestos would be harmful.

However, regarding the final element of plaintiff’s concealment claim the court determined that the plaintiff had not met her burden of proof. Specifically, the court found that J&J did not make materially misrepresented statements about its Johnson’s Baby Powder that would trigger a duty to disclose.

3. JNVO Denied as to Causation

The court found that the jury did not clearly err on the issue of causation. The Court noted that plaintiff’s experts testified that: 1) J&J’s products contained asbestos; 2) plaintiff was “exposed” to J&J’s products containing asbestos; and 3) such “exposure” was to a reasonable probability a substantial factor in contributing to her mesothelioma by increasing her risk of developing asbestos-related cancer.”

While the court acknowledged the substantial evidence presented by J&J challenging the faulty testing and results of plaintiff’s experts, it determined that defendant’s evidence was not so clearly more credible than plaintiff’s to warrant JNOV. While discussed earlier in Judge Kwan’s decision, her analysis of the causation evidence did not include a discussion on the undisputed lack of epidemiological evidence showing any causal link between talc and mesothelioma.

You can read more about the decision, here.