BY COMFORT OGBONNA
In a major boost for tens of thousands of women suing Johnson & Johnson over claims that its baby powder and other talc-based products caused ovarian cancer, a court-appointed special master has recommended that plaintiffs be allowed to present expert testimony supporting that alleged link at trial. The recommendation, issued on Tuesday, could move the long-running litigation significantly closer to its first federal courtroom test later this year.
The opinion was authored by retired U.S. District Judge Freda Wolfson, who was appointed to evaluate expert evidence in the sprawling litigation pending in federal court in New Jersey. The cases involve more than 67,500 lawsuits brought by women who allege that long-term use of Johnson & Johnson’s talc products contributed to their cancer diagnoses. If adopted by the presiding judge, Wolfson’s findings would allow the litigation to advance toward trial after years of procedural delays.
Product liability cases typically hinge on expert testimony to establish whether a product is capable of causing the alleged harm. As a result, rulings on the admissibility of expert opinions are often decisive turning points. In this instance, Wolfson concluded that the plaintiffs’ experts used reliable scientific methods and should be permitted to testify that there is a causal relationship between genital talc use and ovarian cancer, a claim Johnson & Johnson has long disputed.
In her 658-page report, Wolfson wrote that, based on a preponderance of the evidence, the plaintiffs’ experts relied on sound methodologies in reviewing epidemiological studies conducted both before and after 2020. Taken together, she said, those studies demonstrate a positive and statistically significant association between the use of talc powder in the genital area and ovarian cancer.
At the same time, Wolfson emphasized that her role was not to decide which side’s scientific conclusions were correct, but rather to determine whether the experts’ methods met the standards required under federal law to be presented to a jury. She also recommended that experts put forward by Johnson & Johnson be allowed to testify to counter the plaintiffs’ claims, ensuring that jurors would hear competing scientific views if the case proceeds to trial.
Wolfson did side with the company on several key points. She agreed that testimony attempting to link heavy metals or fragrance chemicals in Johnson & Johnson’s products to cancer should be excluded, as should a theory suggesting that talc could migrate to the ovaries through inhalation. She also deferred ruling on certain disputed testimony, scheduling additional hearings later this month and in early February.
The recommendation now goes to U.S. District Judge Michael Shipp in Trenton, New Jersey, who is overseeing the litigation. Shipp will consider objections from both sides before deciding whether to adopt Wolfson’s conclusions. Johnson & Johnson has already signaled that it will challenge the recommendation. In a statement, Erik Haas, worldwide vice president of litigation for the company, said the ruling was flawed and failed to meet the court’s “gatekeeping duty” to rigorously evaluate expert evidence. He argued that the special master did not sufficiently scrutinize the studies relied upon by the plaintiffs’ experts.
Lawyers for the plaintiffs welcomed the report as a long-awaited step toward trial. Chris Tisi, one of the lead attorneys, said the recommendation confirms that the cases are grounded in credible scientific evidence and expressed relief that, after years of delays, the women and their families may finally have the opportunity to present their claims in court.
Investors reacted cautiously to the news, with shares of Johnson & Johnson slipping about 0.4% in after-hours trading. The company has consistently maintained that its talc products are safe and do not cause cancer. It stopped selling talc-based baby powder in the United States in 2020, switching instead to a cornstarch-based product, while continuing to deny any wrongdoing.
This is not the first time Wolfson has reviewed the scientific evidence in the talc litigation. She previously oversaw the multidistrict litigation from its inception in 2016 until her retirement in 2023. In a 2020 ruling, she allowed plaintiffs’ experts to testify that any cancer risk could be linked to alleged asbestos contamination in talc, a claim Johnson & Johnson has also denied. Judge Shipp ordered a fresh review of the evidence in 2024, citing both changes to federal rules governing expert testimony and the emergence of new scientific research.
Johnson & Johnson has repeatedly sought to resolve the litigation through bankruptcy proceedings, an approach that has been rejected by federal courts three times, most recently in April 2025. Those efforts placed many of the lawsuits on hold for years. The company has also pursued an aggressive legal strategy against some scientists whose research supported plaintiffs’ claims, accusing them of falsifying results. One such lawsuit remains pending, while another has been dismissed.
Before the bankruptcy attempts, the company experienced mixed outcomes in state courts. Some trials resulted in massive verdicts, including a $4.69 billion award to 22 women, though several judgments have been reduced on appeal and the company has also prevailed in some cases. Separately, Johnson & Johnson continues to face lawsuits alleging that its talc products caused mesothelioma, a rare and aggressive cancer. While some of those claims have been settled, many have gone to trial, resulting in several large verdicts over the past year, including one exceeding $1.5 billion in Baltimore in December.
Wolfson’s recommendation marks one of the most consequential developments in the federal talc litigation in years, potentially setting the stage for juries to finally weigh the competing scientific claims at the heart of the dispute.