Thousands of people across the United Kingdom have taken a dramatic step this week, filing a landmark lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson, the American pharmaceutical and consumer goods giant, over claims that its talcum-based baby powder caused cancer. This legal action, lodged in London’s High Court on October 16, 2025, represents more than 3,000 claimants and seeks compensation estimated at over £1 billion (about $1.3 billion), according to KP Law, the firm leading the case.
The allegations at the heart of this suit are nothing short of explosive. Claimants say that from 1965 to 2023, Johnson & Johnson knowingly sold talc products contaminated with carcinogenic fibers, including asbestos—a substance widely recognized as a cancer risk. The legal claim asserts that the company was aware of these dangers for more than fifty years but continued to market and sell the product in pursuit of profit. "For decades, Johnson & Johnson have orchestrated a campaign of denials and subterfuge," Tom Longstaff, the lead lawyer at KP Law, told BBC News, vowing, "We will be relentless in holding them to account on behalf of all those who have suffered due to their actions."
The lawsuit, which is the first group claim of its kind against Johnson & Johnson in Britain, mirrors a wave of litigation that has swept across the United States in recent years. There, the company has faced tens of thousands of similar complaints, including a recent case in which a Los Angeles jury ordered Johnson & Johnson to pay $966 million to the family of a woman who died from mesothelioma, a rare and aggressive cancer linked to asbestos exposure. While such awards are often higher in the US, the scale and scope of the UK claim—both in terms of the number of claimants and the compensation sought—underscore the seriousness of the allegations.
The claimants’ case is built on a trove of internal Johnson & Johnson memos, scientific reports, and historical documents. According to CBS News, one internal memo from 1969 stated that until tremolite (one of six types of asbestos) was proven to have no adverse effects, its use should be minimized, and warned that talc could no longer be guaranteed as safe for babies. By the 1980s, it was widely accepted in the scientific community that all forms of asbestos were dangerous and could cause cancer. Despite this, the lawsuit alleges, Johnson & Johnson and other companies successfully lobbied the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to avoid regulating asbestos content in talc-based products.
The risks associated with talc arise in part because it is a naturally occurring mineral that is often found near asbestos deposits underground. Michael Rawlinson KC, representing the UK claimants, told Sky News, "There exist very few, if any, commercially exploited talc deposits in the world which do not contain asbestos." He further alleged that reports from talc mines, Johnson & Johnson’s own research, and published scientific studies would have made the company aware of potential contamination. Yet, according to Rawlinson, Johnson & Johnson "suppressed information that might indicate that baby powder was contaminated with asbestos," "lobbied regulators" to allow continued sales, and sponsored studies to "downplay the dangers" to human health.
For many families, the impact of these allegations is deeply personal. Siobhan Ryan, a 63-year-old claimant, shared her story with BBC News: "My mother used it and I used it. It smelled nice and was soft and lovely. When my babies were born I used it on them. I thought I was doing my best for them … It was such a shock. We just hugged and cried. I couldn't believe what I was hearing when the doctor told me I had stage-four ovarian cancer." After three rounds of chemotherapy, major surgery, and a battle with near-fatal sepsis, doctors have told her that her cancer is no longer operable. "They knew it was contaminated and still they sold it to new mums and their babies," she said.
The UK claim covers people who developed ovarian cancer, mesothelioma, uterine fibroids, and other diseases after using Johnson & Johnson’s talc-based powders for at least five years—often since infancy, childhood, or even into adulthood. The product was marketed in Britain with packaging that declared its "mildness clinically proven." The claimants argue that such messaging, combined with the company’s long-standing reputation, led generations of families to trust the product implicitly.
Johnson & Johnson, for its part, has consistently denied the allegations. In a statement to the media, the company referred all inquiries about the UK lawsuit to Kenvue, its former consumer health arm, which it spun off in August 2023. Kenvue now retains responsibility for talc-related litigation outside the United States and Canada. In a statement to the BBC, Kenvue said it "sympathizes deeply with people living with cancer," adding, "We understand that they and their families want answers—that's why the facts are so important." The company defended the safety of the baby powder, claiming it "was compliant with any required regulatory standards, did not contain asbestos, and does not cause cancer." Kenvue further stated that the product’s safety is "backed by years of testing by independent and leading laboratories, universities, and health authorities in the UK and around the world."
Despite these assurances, the controversy has only grown. The World Health Organization’s cancer agency classified talc as "probably carcinogenic" for humans in July 2024. However, a 2020 summary of studies involving 250,000 American women did not find a statistical link between the use of talc on the genitals and the risk of ovarian cancer. The scientific debate, it seems, is far from settled.
Johnson & Johnson’s response to the mounting litigation has included significant changes to its product lines. The company stopped selling its talc-based baby powder in the United States and Canada in 2020, switching to a cornstarch-based version. In 2023, it withdrew the talc-based product globally, including from British shelves. That same year, Johnson & Johnson spun off its consumer brands to form Kenvue, a move that placed responsibility for talc litigation outside the US and Canada in the hands of the new company.
The UK case will be decided by a judge, not a jury, at the High Court’s Manchester Circuit Commercial Court. While the outcome remains uncertain, the case has already reignited a global debate about product safety, corporate responsibility, and the rights of consumers to know what’s in the products they use daily. As the legal process unfolds, both sides are preparing for a protracted battle—one that will undoubtedly be watched closely by families, regulators, and companies around the world.
For now, the thousands of claimants and their families wait, hoping their stories will finally be heard and that the courts will provide the answers—and accountability—they have sought for decades.
