Johnson & Johnson Talc Lawsuit, $250K Philadelphia Verdict & What It Means for Other Claims

On February 13, 2026, a Philadelphia jury found Johnson & Johnson liable for the ovarian cancer death of Gayle Emerson — a woman who used the company’s talc-based baby powder for more than 45 years — and awarded $250,000 in damages. The verdict is the first plaintiff win in Philadelphia’s roughly 175-case talc mass tort docket. No class action settlement currently exists. With more than 67,000 federal cases pending in the New Jersey MDL, J&J’s talc litigation remains active nationwide.

Quick Facts

• Case name: Emerson v. Johnson & Johnson, Case No. 190509334
• Court: Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania
• Defendant: Johnson & Johnson Inc.
• Verdict amount: $250,000 ($50,000 compensatory damages + $200,000 punitive damages)
• Verdict date: February 13, 2026
• Current litigation status: Active; J&J plans to appeal; no class action settlement in place; 67,000+ cases pending in federal MDL in New Jersey
• Who may be affected: Individuals diagnosed with ovarian cancer or mesothelioma after regular use of J&J talc-based products such as Johnson’s Baby Powder and Shower to Shower
• Settlement or claim deadline: No class action settlement or claim deadline currently exists; individual lawsuits are the primary legal avenue
• Official court/MDL contact: U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey (MDL No. 3:16-md-02738)

Current Status and What Happens Next

The $250,000 Philadelphia verdict is the second trial result from Philadelphia’s talc mass tort docket, and the first win for a plaintiff in that court. There are 176 cases pending in Philadelphia’s Complex Litigation Center, while thousands are in other state courts around the country and even more are consolidated in a federal court in Massachusetts. Following the verdict, J&J stated it plans to appeal the ruling.

No comprehensive class action settlement currently exists for talc claimants. J&J’s most recent effort to resolve talc lawsuits through a controversial bankruptcy procedure was rejected, and J&J resumed taking cases to trial after the failed 2025 bankruptcy attempt. At the federal level, a multidistrict litigation (MDL) proceeding in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey consolidates the largest volume of talc injury claims. A January 2026 federal ruling that plaintiffs’ causation experts can testify cleared a major procedural hurdle toward additional trials in that MDL. More state and federal trials are expected throughout 2026, and legal observers have noted that continued adverse verdicts could increase pressure on J&J to negotiate a broad settlement.

What the Lawsuit Alleges

The Philadelphia case and thousands of related talc lawsuits allege that Johnson & Johnson failed to warn consumers that its talc-based products — particularly Johnson’s Baby Powder and Shower to Shower — were contaminated with asbestos and that regular use of these products caused ovarian cancer or mesothelioma. The Philadelphia jury found that J&J failed to warn consumers about the public health risks of its talc-based baby powder.

The legal claims in these cases typically include product liability based on failure to warn, design defect, and negligence, as well as related claims for wrongful death in cases where the plaintiff died before or during trial. In the Emerson case, plaintiffs argued that J&J concealed the presence of asbestos in its talcum powder from the FDA and from consumers for decades. J&J denies all of these allegations and maintains that its talc products are safe, do not contain asbestos, and do not cause cancer. The company removed its talc-based baby powder from the U.S. market in 2020 and reformulated it with cornstarch.

Who Could Be Included

The Johnson & Johnson talc litigation is not a single class action with uniform eligibility criteria. Instead, it is a collection of individual lawsuits and mass tort proceedings consolidated for pretrial management. The primary federal consolidation is the MDL in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (MDL No. 3:16-md-02738-FLW-LHG), which currently contains more than 67,000 pending cases.

Individuals who may be eligible to file a talc injury lawsuit generally include those who regularly used J&J talc-based products such as Johnson’s Baby Powder or Shower to Shower — particularly in the genital area — and who were subsequently diagnosed with ovarian cancer or mesothelioma. Individual eligibility depends on facts specific to each person, including the duration and nature of product use, the diagnosis, and applicable state statutes of limitations. Because statutes of limitations vary by state and by date of diagnosis, some individuals who assume their time to file has passed may still have open windows. Anyone with a potential talc-related claim should consult a qualified attorney promptly to evaluate options.

Related article: Grubhub Delivery Fee Settlement $5M, California Eligibility & How to File

The Philadelphia Verdict and What It Means

The verdict, reached after three weeks of trial and several days of deliberations, awarded $50,000 in compensatory damages and $200,000 in punitive damages to the estate of Gayle Emerson. Emerson was a Philadelphia native who worked as a tax preparer and used J&J baby powder for more than 45 years. She was diagnosed with ovarian cancer in 2015 at age 64, filed her lawsuit in 2019, and passed away six months later. Her estate and family continued the case through trial.

This verdict marks the first plaintiffs’ win in Philadelphia’s sprawling talc litigation against J&J, which encompasses roughly 175 cases. The Philadelphia docket had been paused for several years while courts addressed J&J’s now-rejected bankruptcy proceedings. The $250,000 verdict is substantially smaller than other recent talc awards nationally, with a Los Angeles jury awarding $966 million in October 2025, a Baltimore jury returning a $1.5 billion verdict in December 2025, and a Los Angeles jury awarding $40 million to two plaintiffs that same month. J&J characterized the Philadelphia award as a “token verdict” and announced plans to appeal. Plaintiffs’ counsel emphasized that the liability finding — that J&J was responsible for Emerson’s death — carried significance regardless of the dollar amount.

This verdict is legally binding only on the parties involved: the Emerson estate and J&J. It does not automatically determine the outcome of other pending talc cases. However, individual trial verdicts across multiple jurisdictions contribute to the overall trajectory of the litigation and can influence settlement negotiations.

Settlement Details

No active class action settlement or trust fund currently exists for J&J talc claimants. J&J’s proposed $8.9 billion settlement was rejected by a bankruptcy judge, and the $8 billion proposed ovarian cancer bankruptcy settlement was also rejected. All three of J&J’s attempts to resolve talc liability through a “Texas Two-Step” bankruptcy strategy — creating subsidiaries to absorb the talc claims and filing those subsidiaries for Chapter 11 protection — were rejected by courts, with the most recent rejection occurring in April 2025.

As of February 2026, the only available legal mechanism for talc claimants is filing an individual lawsuit or having a case transferred into the federal MDL or a state mass tort docket. There is no claim form, no settlement administrator, and no claim deadline applicable to the general public at this time. If a future class action settlement is negotiated and approved, AllAboutLawyer.com will update this article with eligibility criteria, claim procedures, and deadlines. Individuals who used J&J talc products and later developed ovarian cancer or mesothelioma should consult a qualified attorney about whether and how to file a claim.

Prior Related Cases and Context

Johnson & Johnson’s talc litigation history spans more than a decade. The company agreed to pay $700 million to 42 states over marketing tactics that assured consumers their products were safe. The largest single jury verdict in talc litigation was $4.69 billion in 2018 in a Missouri case involving 22 plaintiffs — later reduced to $2.1 billion on appeal. Verdicts against J&J have been returned in Missouri, New Jersey, California, Maryland, Minnesota, and now Pennsylvania. Not all verdicts have favored plaintiffs; J&J has also won at trial in multiple jurisdictions.

The Philadelphia case is also notable because the law firm Beasley Allen, which represented the Emerson estate, was recently disqualified from more than 3,000 New Jersey talc cases following findings that one of the firm’s attorneys collaborated with a former J&J lawyer on a non-bankruptcy settlement plan. That disqualification does not affect the Philadelphia verdict, which has already been entered. A January 27, 2026 federal ruling by Judge Freda Wolfson — in a 685-page opinion — determined that plaintiffs’ experts used reliable methodologies in establishing the link between talc use and ovarian cancer, clearing the path for federal MDL trials to proceed.

FAQs

What is the Johnson & Johnson talc lawsuit about? 

Tens of thousands of lawsuits allege that J&J’s talc-based products — including Johnson’s Baby Powder and Shower to Shower — contained asbestos and caused ovarian cancer or mesothelioma in users. The lawsuits claim J&J failed to warn consumers about these risks for decades. J&J denies all allegations.

What did the Philadelphia jury decide? 

On February 13, 2026, a Philadelphia jury found J&J liable for the ovarian cancer death of Gayle Emerson and awarded $250,000 — split between $50,000 in compensatory damages and $200,000 in punitive damages. It was the first plaintiff win in Philadelphia’s approximately 175-case talc mass tort docket.

Is there a class action settlement I can file a claim in right now? 

No. As of February 2026, no class action settlement or trust fund exists for J&J talc claimants. J&J’s three attempts to settle through bankruptcy were all rejected by courts. Individual lawsuits or cases in the federal MDL or state mass torts remain the available legal options.

Who may be eligible to file a talc injury lawsuit? 

Individuals who regularly used J&J talc-based products such as Johnson’s Baby Powder or Shower to Shower — particularly in the genital area — and who were diagnosed with ovarian cancer or mesothelioma may be eligible. Statutes of limitations vary by state and individual circumstance. Consulting a qualified attorney promptly is recommended.

Is there a deadline to file a claim? 

No universal claim deadline exists because there is no class action settlement. Individual lawsuit deadlines are determined by each state’s statute of limitations, which varies depending on diagnosis date, state of filing, and other factors. Some deadlines may be sooner than others. An attorney can evaluate your specific situation.

Where can I find official case information? 

The federal MDL is centralized in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, MDL No. 3:16-md-02738. The Philadelphia case, Emerson v. Johnson & Johnson, Case No. 190509334, is filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania. Court dockets are publicly accessible through those courts.

What happens next in J&J’s talc litigation?

 J&J has stated it plans to appeal the Philadelphia verdict. Additional talc trials are expected in state and federal courts throughout 2026. The outcome of those trials — and whether J&J continues to face large verdicts — will be a key factor in determining whether the company agrees to a broad settlement to resolve the more than 67,000 remaining federal claims.

Last Updated: February 28, 2026

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Legal claims and outcomes depend on specific facts and applicable law. For advice regarding a particular situation, consult a qualified attorney.

About the Author

Sarah Klein, JD, is a licensed attorney and legal content strategist with over 12 years of experience across civil, criminal, family, and regulatory law. At All About Lawyer, she covers a wide range of legal topics — from high-profile lawsuits and courtroom stories to state traffic laws and everyday legal questions — all with a focus on accuracy, clarity, and public understanding.
Her writing blends real legal insight with plain-English explanations, helping readers stay informed and legally aware.
Read more about Sarah