What the Court Documents Show About J&J’s $966M Loss

After four years of litigation, a Los Angeles County Superior Court jury has awarded a historic $966 million to the family of Mae K. Moore in a wrongful death lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson. The verdict, filed October 6, 2025 in Judge Ruth Ann Kwan’s courtroom, found J&J 100% responsible for Moore’s mesothelioma diagnosis, which led to her death.

Moore filed her personal injury lawsuit on February 9, 2021. The claim was amended to a wrongful death suit on February 18, 2022, following Moore’s death on December 29, 2021. Her three daughters became the plaintiffs in the amended filing.

Initially, the suit named companies like Avon, Chanel, Colgate-Palmolive, Dana Classic Fragrances, Lucky Stores and Johnson & Johnson as defendants. A settlement with Avon was filed April 13, 2023, the case against other defendants like J&J subsidiary Janssen Pharmaceuticals was dismissed without prejudice. Only J&J was named in the verdict.

The nearly $1 billion award is the largest talc verdict for an individual plaintiff since J&J began facing talcum powder lawsuits in the last 15 years. While multi-plaintiff cases have yielded larger total verdicts, this single plaintiff award is unprecedented.

Inside the Jury’s Record-Breaking Decision

The verdict document we obtained shows the jury’s responses to 25 questions. Their answers reveal how they viewed the testimony and evidence presented in the case. 

The initial questions established the jury’s determination that J&J’s talc-based baby powder was contaminated and Moore was exposed to asbestos as a result. When asked specifically, “Was Mae Moore exposed to a product manufactured, distributed, supplied or sold by Johnson & Johnson (Johnson’s Baby Powder or Shower to Shower) that contained asbestos?” the jury responded yes.

The jury also answered yes to: “Was Johnson & Johnson negligent?” and “Was Johnson & Johnson’s negligence a substantial factor in causing Mae Moore’s mesothelioma?” They also answered yes to questions asking if J&J’s baby powder or Shower to Shower contained a “manufacturing defect” and if that defect was a “substantial factor in causing Mae Moore’s mesothelioma.”

Critically, the jury responded yes when asked, “Did Johnson’s Baby Powder or Shower to Shower have potential risks that were known or knowable in light of the scientific and medical knowledge that was generally accepted in the scientific community at the time of manufacture, distribution or sale?” They also answered yes to: “Did Johnson & Johnson intentionally fail to disclose a fact that Mae Moore did not know and could not reasonably have discovered.”

“Did Johnson & Johnson intend to deceive Mae Moore by concealing the fact?” and if that “concealment” was a “substantial factor in causing Mae Moore’s mesothelioma” were also both answered with yes. When asked what percentage of responsibility they assigned to J&J for Moore’s mesothelioma, the jury responded: 100%.

Breaking Down the Jury’s Awards for Pain, Suffering, Loss and Punitive Damages

The jury was asked to determine non-economic damages. These go beyond covering treatment expenses and other medical costs related to mesothelioma. They focus on what’s known as “pain and suffering.” 

The jury was asked to consider what she experienced before her death. Specifically, “What were Mae Moore’s non-economic damages for her past physical pain, mental suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, physical impairment, inconvenience, grief, anxiety, humiliation and emotional distress?”

How the Jury Divided the Award

• $6 million: Mae Moore’s non-economic damages
• $4 million: Joy Moore, Mae Moore’s daughter, named successor in interest
• $3 million: Kathryn Pratt, Mae Moore’s daughter
• $3 million: Carol Farquharson, Mae Moore’s daughter
• $950 million: punitive damages

The jury was also asked to consider non-economic damages for Mae Moore’s three daughters. The question posed: “What are Plaintiffs’ non-economic damages for the loss of Mae Moore’s love, companionship, care, assistance, protection, affection, society, moral support, training and advice?”

The most substantial part of the mesothelioma compensation awarded was the amount of punitive damages. This type of damages is designed to “punish” defendants for offenses like negligence, fraud and malice. When asked, “Do you find by clear and convincing evidence that Johnson & Johnson acted with malice, oppression or fraud in the conduct upon which you base your finding of liability?” the jury responded yes.

What the Wrongful Death Lawsuit Revealed: Decades of Internal Documents

We obtained a copy of the amended wrongful death lawsuit filed in February 2022, which laid out the plaintiff’s case through hundreds of exhibits spanning from the 1930s to recent years. The exhibits, including internal company documents, testing reports and correspondence, formed the body of evidence that ultimately persuaded the jury to award $950 million in punitive damages.

Moore’s Exposure and J&J’s Early Knowledge

According to the mesothelioma lawsuit, “Mae K. Moore was exposed to asbestos on a regular and frequent basis while she used asbestos-containing talcum powder products on herself and her children from approximately the 1930s to 2021.” The plaintiff’s attorneys argued J&J had known about asbestos contamination in talc for decades. 

The lawsuit cited internal documents showing that “beginning in the 1930s, scientific literature emerged indicating talc often had impurities that were known or suspected of being carcinogenic, such as asbestos.” The company knew about these health concerns through its membership in the National Safety Council, according to exhibits from 1934, 1935 and 1936.

Failed Asbestos-Removal Attempts

The lawsuit detailed J&J’s unsuccessful efforts to remove asbestos from talc ore dating back to the 1960s. According to the complaint, “asbestos found in talc ore is impossible to remove from the ore.” 

The company attempted multiple methods: floating the asbestos out, using citrus acids to burn it out and employing reagents, beneficiation and ultrasonic grinding. Evidence entered into the record included a dozen Battelle Reports and confidential internal documents from 1958 through 1974. “These methods do not work, which J&J understood for decades,” the lawsuit stated.

The plaintiff’s attorneys emphasized the scale of contamination: “Asbestos weighs very little so that small amounts represent millions to trillions of fibers of asbestos per gram of baby powder.” They cited trial testimony from a J&J witness in a previous suit acknowledging 1% asbestos would equal millions to trillions of fibers.

Internal Concerns About Litigation Risk

A 1969 internal company document was cited as Exhibit 40 in Moore’s lawsuit. It discussed that “J&J was concerned that the presence of tremolite in its talc products would cause pulmonary diseases and cancer and increase the risk that the company would be drawn into litigation.”

Moore’s lawsuit also quoted from internal memos showing the company’s own executives and lawyers acknowledged key facts while defending other talc cases. This included a 1997 memo stating: “There is no doubt that ‘mesothelioma can be caused by non-occupational exposure to mineral fibers.'” The same documents noted that “mesothelioma may occur after brief or indirect exposure to asbestos.”

One internal analysis was particularly damning. According to the complaint: “In several mesothelioma patients studied, both talc fibers and tremolite were detected. In fact, the majority of asbestos bodies isolated from the lungs of women in the general population have tremolite or anthophyllite and because they’re known contaminants of talc, this data suggests that rare cases of mesothelioma among women with no other identifiable exposure might be related to exposure to cosmetic talc.”

Testing Results J&J Reportedly Never Disclosed

Moore’s case alleged “J&J internally and through hired testing laboratories, such as Battelle Memorial Institute, McCrone Associates and the Colorado School of Mines Research Institute, tested for asbestos impurities in the source talc ore, processed ore and finished products used to manufacture J&J cosmetic talc products. All of these testing laboratories found asbestos minerals in J&J source talc ore or cosmetic talc products.”

Materials Analytical Services, another testing firm, “repeatedly found what was also found in J&J internal testing, the presence of tremolite and anthophyllite asbestos,” the lawsuit stated. According to the complaint, “J&J withheld most of these results from the public until recently.” 

Public Assurances vs. Internal Documents

The lawsuit contrasted J&J’s internal test results with its public statements. The company “assured consumers that ‘asbestos has never been found in Johnson’s Baby Powder and it never will'” and “repeatedly told the public that ‘Baby Powder does not contain asbestos and never will,'” according to the complaint.

The intent, the lawsuit argued, quoting internal documents, was “to reassure” consumers there was a “zero chance” of exposing their families to asbestos. “These statements… were false when they were made and J&J knew they were false when they made those statements,” the lawsuit alleged.

Representations to the FDA

The plaintiff’s attorneys detailed what they characterized as a pattern of misleading federal regulators. According to the lawsuit, “J&J’s answer to the FDA’s inquiries was always the same: there is no evidence of any amount of asbestos in any J&J cosmetic talc product.”

The company “represented to the FDA ‘over and over again’ that there is not a single instance or report of asbestos… in its products,” the complaint stated. The lawsuit cited particularly troubling allegations about evidence suppression. 

In 1978, “the Chairman of the CTFA Task Force on Round Robin Testing and then current employee of J&J instructed the CTFA to ‘destroy your copy of the table’ containing the results finding asbestos in cosmetic talcs,” according to correspondence entered as an exhibit. “The repeated findings of asbestos in talc were not provided to the FDA,” the lawsuit stated.

“As recently as 2016, J&J represented to the FDA that no asbestos structures have ever been found in its talc-based products in any testing anywhere in the world,” the lawsuit alleged. “This statement made to the FDA was false.”

Alleged Manipulation of Testing Results

The lawsuit alleged that “McCrone and J&J worked together to manipulate testing results of J&J products done by outside laboratories.” And further claims it “reported those manipulated findings to the FDA as negative results.”

In one instance, the complaint stated, Johnson & Johnson hired Professor Hutchinson from the Minnesota Space Center to “privately test the products with the intention of refuting the FDA consultant’s findings.” Instead, “Professor Hutchinson informed Ian Stewart that he found ‘incontrovertible asbestos’ in J&J’s talc-based products.”

According to the lawsuit, “J&J hired outside consultants to conduct tests of J&J Talc Products using test methods J&J knew would not detect asbestos at low levels.” The complaint stated the more sensitive TEM testing “found asbestos fibers in J&J’s talc; the less powerful/sensitive methods did not.” 

Document Retention Issues

The lawsuit alleged serious problems with Johnson & Johnson’s preservation of evidence. “Since at least 1971 J&J has known that information in the company’s possession relevant to or produced in any particular talc-based lawsuit would be relevant to discovery in future talc-based cases,” the complaint stated.

Yet, according to the lawsuit: “although J&J was legally obligated to retain evidence, it does not know where the documents and evidence related to these cases are located or whether they even exist.” The complaint alleged that “in a recent trial, J&J was forced to admit under oath” that statements in an affidavit were “false and perjurious.”

The Jury’s Assessment

These allegations, and the hundreds of exhibits entered into evidence, formed the basis of the plaintiff’s case. The jury’s $950 million punitive damages award suggests they found the evidence of J&J’s conduct particularly compelling. Punitive damages are specifically designed to punish defendants for alleged wrongdoing.

J&J, however, has disputed the verdict and announced plans to appeal. The company’s worldwide Vice President of Litigation Erik Haas called the verdict “egregious and unconstitutional” in a statement. Haas argued the scientific evidence the plaintiffs’ experts presented in the case is “based on ‘junk science’” and said it “never should have been presented to a jury.”

J&J maintains that though it has ended sales of talc-based products globally, those products were safe and didn’t contain asbestos. J&J is still facing more than 67,000 lawsuits related to allegations of asbestos-contaminated talc.