Pune, India | October 16, 2025
Over 3,000 individuals across the United Kingdom have filed a major lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson, alleging that their prolonged use of the company’s talc-based baby powder caused cancer. Claimants argue that the product, widely marketed as safe for daily use, was contaminated with asbestos for decades. They further claim the company was aware of the risks but deliberately chose to conceal them. This high-profile case, now before the High Court in London, represents one of the largest health-related legal challenges the country has seen in recent years.
The lawsuit, spearheaded by law firm KP Law, asserts that Johnson & Johnson—alongside its spin-off company Kenvue UK—failed to warn the public about known dangers. The plaintiffs insist internal documents will prove the company knew about asbestos contamination through its own mining records and research data. According to legal counsel, Johnson & Johnson intentionally downplayed or dismissed negative findings, instead funding favorable studies and lobbying regulators to soften the perceived risk. Transitioning into their main argument, the legal team emphasizes that such efforts were designed to protect corporate profits rather than consumer safety.
Johnson & Johnson and Kenvue, however, strongly deny all allegations. A spokesperson for the companies claimed Johnson’s baby powder “has never contained asbestos and does not cause cancer.” They highlighted decades of regulatory reviews and independent laboratory testing in the UK and other countries, all reportedly confirming the product’s safety. Despite expressing sympathy toward those affected by cancer, both firms continue to deny responsibility and reject all legal liability.
Medical experts have long connected mesothelioma to asbestos exposure, particularly through inhalation of microscopic fibers. In support of the plaintiffs’ case, several autopsy reports have allegedly found traces of asbestos in the talc used by individuals who later developed cancer. While the link between talc and ovarian cancer remains scientifically debated, the plaintiffs argue the presence of asbestos in a personal care product justifies their concerns and legal action.
The timing of the lawsuit adds to its significance. Johnson & Johnson stopped selling its talc-based baby powder in the United States in 2020, and globally by 2023. Nonetheless, the UK lawsuit covers product use dating from 1965 through 2023. Though Kenvue became a separate entity in 2023, it remains implicated due to its inherited product line and association with J&J. Consequently, both entities now face legal exposure in the UK.
Legal proceedings in Britain differ substantially from those in the United States. While J&J currently confronts tens of thousands of lawsuits in American courts, including a recent $966 million judgment for a mesothelioma case, UK courts generally award lower damages. However, this British litigation could still set critical precedents, especially concerning how companies disclose health risks tied to consumer goods. This case might also redefine how future product liability lawsuits are approached in the UK.
The personal experiences shared by the plaintiffs underscore the case’s emotional weight. One individual described using Johnson’s baby powder since the 1960s, relying on advertising that portrayed it as safe and beneficial. Another recalled her husband’s battle with mesothelioma after decades of using the powder. These testimonials, supported by medical records and internal corporate documents, could significantly influence the outcome of the trial.
Should the court rule in favor of the plaintiffs, Johnson & Johnson and Kenvue may face substantial financial penalties and lasting damage to their public reputations. Moreover, the ruling could prompt stricter regulations surrounding product labeling, safety testing, and consumer transparency. Other global markets may also see a rise in similar lawsuits, given the potential legal precedent and publicity this case generates.
This legal battle also prompts deeper reflection on corporate ethics. Did Johnson & Johnson intentionally withhold critical safety information? Were regulators ineffective in monitoring the company’s practices? Did financial interests override public health concerns? These questions now lie at the heart of the High Court’s review, with the answers potentially reshaping consumer protection law in the UK.
In conclusion, the Johnson & Johnson talc lawsuit marks a pivotal moment for British public health litigation. The thousands of plaintiffs involved claim decades of harm, misrepresentation, and corporate negligence. In contrast, J&J and Kenvue maintain that their product was safe and properly tested. As this historic trial progresses, it could redefine how UK courts approach consumer health risks and corporate responsibility.
