US Judge Rejects J&J's $10 Billion Baby Powder Settlement Proposal
A Federal Judge Has Rejected Johnson & Johnson's $10 Billion Proposed Settlement For Baby Powder Cancer Claims
Thursday, September 18, 2025 - A recent ruling has put Johnson & Johnson's long-running talcum powder litigation back into the spotlight, as a U.S. judge struck down a proposed $10 billion settlement plan designed to resolve tens of thousands of ovarian cancer and mesothelioma claims. The decision is being seen as a significant setback for the company's ongoing bankruptcy strategy, which has been closely watched across the legal and corporate world. The rejected deal was structured to channel claims into a trust, but plaintiffs' lawyers argued it unfairly limited compensation for victims. With more than 60,000 lawsuits still pending, the court's decision could accelerate jury trials and trigger new waves of litigation. Women who allege long-term use of talcum powder caused ovarian cancer say they are relieved, claiming the offer undervalued the harm caused. Attorneys point to the importance of transparency and argue that victims deserve their day in court. Some are already speaking with a baby powder ovarian cancer lawyer to see whether the rejected deal strengthens their position. Others believe the failed settlement will motivate more people to pursue a baby powder ovarian cancer lawsuit, given similarities in how corporations handle health risk disclosures.
According to the U.S. District Court opinion released in April 2025, the plan failed to meet the standard for equitable treatment of creditors under federal bankruptcy law. The court emphasized that settlements must account for both current and future victims, not simply resolve immediate financial exposure for corporations. Legal experts note that this rejection echoes prior failed attempts by Johnson & Johnson to use bankruptcy as a shield. Federal data also shows that baby powder ovarian cancer lawsuits continue to increase, with the National Institutes of Health linking talc exposure to elevated risks in recent studies. Public health agencies are paying attention, with the FDA and CDC both acknowledging growing concern over cosmetic talc safety. For survivors and advocates, the ruling strengthens calls for accountability, clearer warning labels, and comprehensive regulatory reforms. The decision signals to other companies that mass tort settlements cannot simply be forced through bankruptcy court without rigorous scrutiny of victim compensation.
The ripple effects of this ruling are already being felt. Plaintiff groups have renewed demands for open trials, where juries will decide damages on a case-by-case basis. Many lawyers argue that this is the only way for women with baby powder ovarian cancer to receive compensation that reflects the seriousness of their illnesses. Financial analysts suggest Johnson & Johnson could face payouts exceeding the rejected $10 billion figure if trials resume in bulk. This possibility is causing concern among shareholders, who fear prolonged litigation will impact earnings and reputation. Advocates, meanwhile, are urging lawmakers to revisit corporate bankruptcy loopholes that allow companies to create subsidiaries to manage liabilities. They argue this strategy, sometimes called the "Texas Two-Step," unfairly stacks the system against injured consumers.
The rejection of J&J's $10 billion proposal suggests courts are no longer willing to rubber-stamp settlements that prioritize corporate financial protection over victims' rights. This decision could shape how large corporations approach liability in future health and safety cases, setting new benchmarks for accountability.
OnderLaw, LLC -