![](\"https:\/\/www.insurancejournal.com\/app\/uploads\/2024\/03\/users_iqjWHBFdfxIU_iv_R6hqS1LU0_v0_piFq5T3pJF0qzS8rF9LjsWaQ_-1x-1-580x387.jpg\")
<\/p>\n![](\"https:\/\/www.insurancejournal.com\/app\/uploads\/2024\/03\/users_iqjWHBFdfxIU_iv_R6hqS1LU0_v0_piFq5T3pJF0qzS8rF9LjsWaQ_-1x-1.jpg\")
<\/div>\nJohnson & Johnson will pay $75 million to settle a consumer protection lawsuit filed by Mississippi over the company\u2019s talc-based baby powder, according to people familiar with the matter, resolving litigation in which the state had sought as much as $6 billion.<\/p>\n
The pact comes as lawyers for the state and J&J were gearing up for a non-jury trial next month in Jackson, Mississippi, said the people, who asked not to be named because the accord isn\u2019t yet public. Mississippi was one of only two states to file suit over J&J\u2019s marketing of its baby powder.<\/p>\n
The state sued over J&J\u2019s failure to warn consumers about the powder\u2019s alleged cancer risks over nearly a 50-year period. The settlement comes as the world\u2019s largest maker of health care products seeks to manage<\/a> a growing number of suits by consumers accusing it of concealing the product\u2019s risks, after two unsuccessful attempts to use the bankruptcy courts to impose a settlement on former users.<\/p>\n The decade-long litigation, along with the prospect of future cancer suits, has put a damper on J&J\u2019s stock price, analysts such as JPMorgan Chase & Co.\u2019s Chris Schott<\/a> have noted in the past. The shares were up 0.3% in New York trading.<\/p>\n \u201cConsistent with the plan we outlined last year, the company continues to pursue several paths to achieve a comprehensive and final resolution of the talc litigation,\u201d Eric Haas<\/a>, J&J\u2019s worldwide vice president of litigation, said in an emailed statement. \u201cWe will continue to address the claims of those who do not want to participate in our contemplated consensual bankruptcy resolution through litigation or settlement.\u201d<\/p>\n Debbee Hancock, a spokeswoman for Mississippi Attorney General Lynn Fitch, didn\u2019t immediately return calls Thursday seeking comment on the settlement.<\/p>\n Fines Sought<\/strong><\/p>\n As part of its case, Mississippi asked a judge to order J&J to put a warning on baby powder sold in the state and force the company to pay as much as $10,000 per violation of the state\u2019s consumer-protection laws tied to years of sales. Mississippi sought at least $6 billion in fines, the people said.<\/p>\n The pact follows J&J\u2019s agreement in January to pay $700 million<\/a> to resolve a probe by 42 US states into claims J&J wrongfully marketed its talc-based baby powder by not warning about possible cancer risks. Mississippi\u2019s settlement wasn\u2019t covered by that deal, the people said. Only Mississippi and New Mexico have actually filed suits targeting the company\u2019s marketing<\/a> of its baby powder.<\/p>\n J&J argues in court filings its talc-based products don\u2019t cause cancer and it has marketed its baby powder appropriately for more than a century. It also notes federal regulators haven\u2019t demanded it to post a cancer warning on the bottle. The company no longer makes or sells its talc-based baby powder, replacing it worldwide with a cornstarch version<\/p>\n The New Brunswick, New Jersey-based company offered to settle<\/a> all current and future baby powder claims for $9 billion in the bankruptcy filing of one of its units. Lawyers for former talc users have rejected that offer. J&J has vowed to have a unit file a third bankruptcy case in hopes of facilitating further settlement talks.<\/p>\n At one point, J&J sought to use Mississippi\u2019s case to get appellate courts to create a broad shield for the company from suits targeting its baby powder. But the Mississippi Supreme Court refused to find talc plaintiffs were precluded from suing the company since the US Food and Drug Administration refused to require it to include a cancer warning on the product after anti-cancer advocates requested them. The US Supreme Court later refused<\/a> to hear J&J\u2019s appeal of the state appellate court\u2019s finding.<\/p>\n J&J said in securities filings last month it now faces nearly 60,000 suits from ex-talc users who blame their cancers on the powder. The company has settled a recent spate of trial-ready cases, but still faces some state-court juries later this year. A large number of talc cases are consolidated before US District Judge Michael Shipp in Trenton, New Jersey for pre-trial information exchanges.<\/p>\n On Wednesday, Shipp ordered a fresh review of the evidence plaintiffs are relying on to make their cases that J&J\u2019s talc-based baby powder causes ovarian cancer. Shipp took over the case last year after ex-Chief District Judge Freda Wolfson retired. Wolfson had signed off on the ovarian-cancer evidence.<\/p>\n The case is Mississippi v. Johnson & Johnson, Civil Action No. 25CH1:14-cv-001207, Chancery Court for the First Judicial District of Hinds County, Mississippi (Jackson).<\/p>\n Topics<\/span> Lawsuits<\/a> Mississippi<\/a> <\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n Was this article valuable?<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n