Dean Omar Branham Shirley LLP Play a Huge Role in a Litigation Trend
In courtrooms across the country, juries have delivered a series of eye-catching verdicts against Johnson & Johnson, awarding tens — and in some cases hundreds — of millions of dollars to plaintiffs who claimed the company failed to warn consumers about the dangers of asbestos contamination in its talc-based powders. What began years ago as a trickle of product liability suits has matured into one of the most closely watched mass tort battles in the country, driven largely by failure-to-warn claims that resonate powerfully with jurors.
In August 2024, a jury in Richland County, South Carolina, returned a verdict of approximately $63.4 million in favor of Michael L. Perry and his spouse, Lonnie L. Long, in their case against Johnson & Johnson and co-defendant American International Industries. Perry, who was diagnosed with mesothelioma after decades of using talc powder, argued that the companies knew or should have known that their talc could be contaminated with asbestos, yet failed to provide adequate warnings. The plaintiffs were represented by attorneys from Dean Omar Branham Shirley LLP, a firm that has become a prominent presence in asbestos and talc litigation nationwide. The defense teams for Johnson & Johnson and American International Industries contested both causation and the allegation that any warning was required, maintaining that their products were safe and complied with regulatory standards. The jury ultimately awarded roughly $32.6 million in compensatory damages and about $30 million in punitive damages, signaling that it believed the conduct at issue warranted not just compensation, but punishment.
If the Perry verdict marked a significant moment, the numbers that followed were even more striking. In October 2025, a Los Angeles County jury awarded nearly $966 million to the family of Mae K. Moore, who died of mesothelioma at age 88. Her family contended that years of regular talc use exposed her to asbestos fibers and that Johnson & Johnson failed to warn consumers despite internal knowledge of contamination risks. The plaintiffs were represented by a coalition of attorneys that included Sabrina H. Strong and Estaban Rodriguez of O’Melveny & Myers LLP, along with John L. Ewald of Kirkland & Ellis LLP. On the defense side, Johnson & Johnson was represented by Jessica M. Dean, Venus Burns, Leonard Sandoval, and Danny Kraft Jr. The verdict included a substantial punitive damages component, reflecting the jury’s conclusion that the failure to warn was not merely an oversight, but a serious breach of corporate responsibility.
Just two months later, in December 2025, another jury — this time in Ramsey County, Minnesota — awarded approximately $65.5 million to Anna Jean Houghton Carley, a 37-year-old mother of three diagnosed with pleural mesothelioma. Carley’s case centered on the same core allegation: that Johnson & Johnson’s talc products were contaminated with asbestos and that consumers were never adequately warned. The jury’s award again included significant compensatory damages, underscoring how jurors are responding to evidence that companies may have had early knowledge of potential contamination risks. Johnson & Johnson’s defense maintained that extensive scientific testing showed its talc products were safe and asbestos-free and that major health authorities had not required a cancer warning label.
Taken together, these verdicts illustrate the evolving power of failure-to-warn theories in product liability law. Plaintiffs’ lawyers have focused less on arguing that talc was inherently defective and more on what the company knew and when it knew it. Internal documents, expert testimony, and historical testing data have become the backbone of these cases. When juries conclude that a company possessed information suggesting a potential hazard but did not pass that information along to consumers, the resulting sense of betrayal can translate into substantial punitive awards.
For Johnson & Johnson, the stakes are enormous. The company has consistently denied that its talc products cause cancer and has pledged to appeal adverse verdicts. It has also pursued broader strategies to manage and resolve the thousands of pending talc claims nationwide. Yet each new verdict over $50 million reinforces the narrative that some juries are willing to hold large corporations accountable in dramatic fashion when they believe warnings were insufficient.
The rise of talc failure-to-warn cases reflects a broader trend in modern tort litigation. Jurors appear increasingly attuned not just to scientific debates over causation, but to questions of transparency and corporate candor. In courtroom after courtroom, the central question is no longer only whether asbestos was present, but whether consumers were given the information they needed to make informed choices. As these cases continue to move through trial courts and into appellate review, they are shaping the future of product liability law — and sending a clear message that, in the eyes of many juries, silence can be as consequential as defect.