$966M Verdict: J&J Liable in Mae Moore Talc Case
Table of Contents
Case Background
Mae K. Moore, an 88-year-old California woman and pastor’s wife, died in 2021 from mesothelioma, a fatal cancer caused by asbestos exposure. Her three daughters Joy Moore, Kathryn Pratt, and Carol Farquharson carried on her lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson, claiming she developed the disease from lifelong use of the company’s talcum powder products, including Johnson’s Baby Powder and Shower to Shower.
Judge Ruth Ann Kwan presided over the Los Angeles trial, which drew national attention as part of a long-running series of asbestos and talc-related lawsuits. The Plaintiffs accused Johnson & Johnson of knowingly selling asbestos-contaminated powders and misleading consumers about their safety.
Cause
The lawsuit alleged that Johnson & Johnson’s talc-based powders were contaminated with asbestos, a known carcinogen, due to the natural co-existence of asbestos in talc deposits sourced from Vermont and Italy. Internal documents and test data were presented showing that the company had been aware of contamination risks for decades but continued selling the products without warnings.
Injury
Mae Moore was diagnosed with mesothelioma in late 2020. She had used talcum powder daily for personal hygiene since the 1930s. Dust from the powders routinely covered her and her children, and according to the lawsuit, prolonged exposure led to the disease that eventually claimed her life.
Damages Sought
The Plaintiffs sought compensation for pain and suffering, emotional distress, medical expenses, and wrongful death. They also pursued punitive damages, accusing Johnson & Johnson of acting with malice, oppression, and fraudulent concealment by continuing to market its baby powder as safe despite mounting evidence of asbestos contamination.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
Legal Representation
Plaintiffs: Mae K. Moore’s surviving daughters,
· Counsel for Plaintiff: Benjamin H. Adams | Dean Omar Branham Shirley LLP | Nideffer Conor Roe | Sandoval Leonard | Dean Jessica Michelle
· Experts for Plaintiff: Arnold R. Brody | Steven E. Haber | David Madigan | Marty S. Kanarek | Mark Bailey | Ronald E. Gordon | Robert W. Johnson
Defendants: Johnson & Johnson | Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc and others.
· Counsel for Defendants: Keith M. Ameele | Calfo Alexander Gerard | Chan Macy Mei-Yi | Cowan Christopher | John L. Ewald | Susan G. Fillichio | Ross B. Galin | Garratt Justin Edward | Haley L. Hansen | Scott L. Hengesbach | Huber Jonathan | John P. Katerndahl | Ko Sandra Meeyoun | Andrew N. Kohn | Langbord Peter Bennett | Fred B. Lee | Lee Jae Hong | Martin Nicolas Peter
| Massenburg Chris | James F. Murdica | Murrin Charles Patrick | Ongaro David Raymond | Pollak William David | Rejch Bartek | Shawn M. Ridley | Ritchie Alicia | Rodriguez Esteban | Alexandra A Roje | Julia E. Romano | Sharp Gary David | Sabrina H. Strong | Strunk Christopher Daniel | Robert E. Thackston | Ulloa Edward Richard | Van Dam Tina Broccardo | Weiss Lindsay | Zarrow Jason Matthew
· Experts for Defendants: Christy A. Barlow | C. Alan Brown | Laura Fuchs Dolan | Stanley J. Geyer | Gary Marsh | Alan M. Segrave | David Weill | Richard Attanoos | Rachel Damico | Gregory B. Diette | Suresh Moolgavkar | Paul Nony | Matthew Sanchez | Ellen Chang | Jennifer Sahmel | Allan Feingold | Kenneth Mundt | Jennifer Pierce | Andreas Saldivar | Alan Segrave | Ronald Dodson | Dominik D. Alexander
Plaintiffs’ Arguments
The Plaintiffs’ attorneys presented decades of internal company memos and laboratory reports showing that Johnson & Johnson attempted and failed to remove asbestos from talc ores. They contended the company manipulated data and concealed asbestos-positive tests, selling the powders while publicly calling them pure and safe for babies and women. Experts testified that even trace amounts of asbestos millions of fibers per gram were sufficient to cause mesothelioma after years of exposure.
Defense Arguments
Johnson & Johnson denied the allegations, insisting its products were asbestos-free and thoroughly tested under federal standards. Defense attorneys argued that independent tests and regulatory reviews confirmed the powder’s safety. They characterized the Plaintiffs’ scientific evidence as outdated and speculative, noting that modern testing of the company’s talc found no asbestos contamination.
Claims
Negligence
The Plaintiffs argued that Johnson & Johnson failed to ensure product safety or warn of known asbestos risks despite decades of internal testing showing contamination.
Strict Liability
They claimed the talcum powder was defectively designed and manufactured because of its asbestos content, making it inherently dangerous for consumer use.
Breach of Warranty
The lawsuit alleged that J&J violated its implied warranty by marketing the powder as safe and gentle for daily use when it was not.
Fraud and Concealment
The Plaintiffs accused the company of intentionally concealing asbestos test results and misleading consumers and regulators about the safety of its talc-based products.
Failure to Warn
Mae Moore’s daughters alleged Johnson & Johnson knew the talc could contain asbestos but intentionally excluded warnings that could have alerted users.
Defense
Johnson & Johnson’s lawyers maintained that there was no credible evidence linking its powders to Moore’s illness. They said the company followed all testing standards and complied with state and federal safety regulations. The defense emphasized that no government health authority had found asbestos in its products and described the punitive claim as excessive and unconstitutional.
Jury Verdict
On October 6, 2025, after weeks of testimony and deliberations, a Los Angeles County jury unanimously found Johnson & Johnson liable for Mae Moore’s mesothelioma and death. The panel concluded that:
Johnson & Johnson’s baby powder and Shower to Shower contained asbestos.
The company was negligent in manufacturing and selling the products.
That negligence directly contributed to Moore’s cancer.
The company intentionally failed to disclose known risks.
Johnson & Johnson acted with malice, oppression, or fraud.
The jury assigned 100 percent of the responsibility to Johnson & Johnson, clearing other companies such as Avon, Chanel, Colgate-Palmolive, and Revlon of any fault.
Damages Awarded
The jury awarded a total of $966 million to Mae Moore’s family:
$6 million for emotional distress and physical pain suffered by Mae Moore before her death.
$10 million in non-economic damages to her daughters for loss of companionship, comfort, and affection $4 million to Joy Moore, and $3 million each to Kathryn Pratt and Carol Farquharson.
$950 million in punitive damages, finding that Johnson & Johnson’s long-term concealment of dangers warranted severe financial punishment.
Aftermath
This verdict became the largest single-Plaintiff award against Johnson & Johnson in any talc-related case nationwide. Plaintiffs’ counsel called it a landmark decision proving the company’s disregard for consumer safety and corporate transparency. The trial had been delayed several times due to Johnson & Johnson’s failed bankruptcy filings, which attempted to move all talc cases into a settlement under a new subsidiary structure.
Following the verdict, Johnson & Johnson’s vice president of litigation announced that the company would appeal, calling the judgment “egregious and unconstitutional.” The company continues to deny that its talc ever contained asbestos or caused cancer.
Closing Statement
The verdict in Mae K. Moore v. Johnson & Johnson marked a historic turning point in talc litigation. The nearly $1 billion award represented both retribution for decades of alleged corporate concealment and recognition of the Moore family’s long legal battle for justice. Though the case will move to appeal, the jury’s decision signaled a decisive moment in the nationwide reckoning over the safety of talc-based consumer products.
Court documents are available upon request at jurimatic@exlitem.com