A long-running legal fight over Johnson & Johnson’s talc products moved a decisive step forward after a court-appointed special master concluded that expert witnesses linking the products to ovarian cancer should be allowed to testify.
The recommendation, issued by retired U.S. District Judge Freda Wolfson, clears a major procedural hurdle in litigation that spans more than 67,500 claims consolidated in federal court in New Jersey. If adopted by the presiding judge, the finding would push the sprawling case toward its first federal jury trial, potentially later this year.
At the center of the dispute is whether Johnson & Johnson’s baby powder and other talc-based products can be credibly tied to ovarian cancer. Wolfson found that the experts supporting the claims relied on methods that meet federal scientific standards, concluding that a body of epidemiological research shows a statistically significant association between genital talc use and the disease.
Her assessment does not determine who is right or wrong. Instead, it opens the door for jurors to hear competing scientific views. Experts presented by Johnson & Johnson to challenge the cancer link would also be permitted to testify.
Wolfson drew limits around that testimony. She recommended excluding opinions that attribute cancer risk to heavy metals or fragrance chemicals in the products, as well as a theory suggesting talc could reach the ovaries through inhalation. Some additional challenges to proposed testimony were left unresolved pending further hearings.
Johnson & Johnson pushed back sharply, saying the recommendation falls short of the rigorous scrutiny required under federal rules. The company has consistently maintained that its talc products are safe and do not cause cancer, and it plans to challenge the recommendation before the judge overseeing the case.
The decision revives litigation that has been repeatedly delayed. Johnson & Johnson halted U.S. sales of talc-based baby powder in 2020, switching to cornstarch, but continued to face mounting claims. Efforts to channel the lawsuits into bankruptcy proceedings were rejected multiple times by federal courts, most recently in 2025, keeping the cases alive.
Wolfson is no newcomer to the dispute. She previously supervised the litigation for several years and had earlier allowed expert testimony asserting a link between talc contaminated with asbestos and cancer—an allegation the company denies. In 2024, the current presiding judge ordered a fresh review of the science, citing tightened rules on expert evidence and the emergence of new studies.
Beyond ovarian cancer claims, Johnson & Johnson has also confronted lawsuits alleging its talc products caused mesothelioma, a rare and aggressive cancer. While some of those claims have been settled, others have gone to trial, with several large verdicts returned in the past year.
Investors reacted cautiously to the latest development, with Johnson & Johnson shares slipping slightly in after-hours trading. For thousands of claimants, however, the recommendation signals that the long-awaited courtroom reckoning may finally be approaching.
