J&J Corporate Manslaughter Costs $2 BILLION

Via In Question: Johnson and Johnson was dealt a blow by the Supreme Court yesterday when the highest court in the land refused to hear their appeal regarding the $2 billion ruling in favor of 20 women who sued the pharma giant and won, after they developed ovarian cancer, they say from using J&J’s baby powder for decades. Attorney Mike Papantonio joins Manila Chan to discuss more.

Become a member today!

Support us by becoming a monthly patron on Patreon, and help keep progressive media alive!

Find our merchandise at Teespring

Spread the word! LIKE and SHARE this video or leave a comment to help direct attention to the stories that matter. And SUBSCRIBE to stay connected with Ring of Fire's video content!

Support Ring of Fire by subscribing to our YouTube channel

Be sociable! Follow us on:

Follow more of our stories at

Subscribe to our podcast

*This transcript was generated by a third-party transcription software company, so please excuse any typos.

Johnson and Johnson was dealt a blow by the Supreme Court yesterday when the highest court in the land refused to hear their appeal regarding the $2 billion ruling in favor of 20 women who sued the pharma giant and won, after they developed ovarian cancer, they say from using J&J's baby powder for decades. Now, SCOTUS upholding the lower court's 2020 decision, however, justices Brett Kavanaugh and Samuel Alito sat this one out as both have ties to J&J. So joining us now to discuss, a lawyer who has firsthand knowledge of cases like this, renowned mass tort attorney host of America's Lawyer, Mike Papantonio. Mike, this is not the first ovarian cancer lawsuit J&J has lost, but I believe maybe the first time SCOTUS has made a comment on such a case. Can you summarize for us what just went down?

Yeah. The issue with the Supreme Court was whether or not the punitive damages were too high, whether or not they've been punished based on the conduct and the compensatory damages that the jury awarded. But look, it's overwhelming J&J sold baby powder to women since the 1800's, always vouching for its purity and its safety. But in the 1950s, J&J knew that talc had the potential to cause female reproductive problems. And by the 60s, they had learned that the talcum that was used in the powder contained asbestos which was a hugely, it's a huge carcinogen. Everybody knew it then, everybody knows it now. And then the timeline even gets uglier from there. In the 1970s, the articles were published showing that talc was deeply embedded in ovarian tumors. And it raised concerns that talc use for feminine hygiene could reach the ovaries and it could cause cancer, their own scientists were telling them that in the 1970s and they ignored it.

And at the same time, J&J and the talc industry adopted a testing methodology for asbestos. And they couldn't guarantee that talc was in, was, it was asbestos free, but they knew the problem was here. So the Supreme Court, they were faced with the issue, this conduct, this, this conduct that J&J has shown time and time again, not just with this case. I mean, this, this string of cases that J&J is involved with right now is overwhelming. So to suggest that gee whiz, the punitive damages were too high is ridiculous. A very close friend of mine actually tried that case. One of the best, honestly, one of the best trial lawyers in the country, Mark Lanier, and what he did is what any trial lawyer does. He had the jury understand the facts. In 1980s, Harvard published a study and it showed a, about a 90% increase of ovarian cancer in women who used baby powder, but Johnson and Johnson kept it on the market anyway.

Wow.

So, so it's no, it's no surprise. It's no surprise that the Supreme Court did exactly what they should have responsibly done. They said, you know what, a court, trial lawyers, I mean, the jury has looked at it.

Yeah.

Appellate courts looked at it. We agree.

Now, Mike, you have, you have railed against J&J for decades. We know that you've spoken about internal memos that support this. Why didn't J&J just make changes to their formula years ago, instead of continuing to fight these cases in court? I mean, wouldn't that have been more cost efficient for them, and then have saved lives?

There was a time in this country when corporations believed they were bulletproof. The government would line up behind the corporation and they still do. They support corporations over consumers all the time. But J&J was so strong. They were so financially strong.

#rof #trofire #theringoffire #progressivenews