The legal battle over Johnson & Johnson (JNJ) baby powder just cleared a significant hurdle. Thousands of women claiming the company's talc-based products caused ovarian cancer got a major procedural win when a court-appointed expert recommended their scientific witnesses be allowed to testify at trial.

This isn't just administrative housekeeping. In product liability cases, expert testimony often makes or breaks the plaintiff's case. You need to prove the product can actually cause the harm you're alleging, which means convincing a judge your experts are using sound scientific methods. Retired U.S. District Judge Freda Wolfson, appointed to evaluate the expert testimony in federal litigation pending in New Jersey, said the plaintiffs' experts passed that test.

The recommendation moves the sprawling federal litigation closer to its first trial, potentially later this year, despite Johnson & Johnson's vigorous objections to the scientific evidence behind the claims. The cases involve more than 67,500 lawsuits alleging the company's talc products caused ovarian cancer.

The Stakes Are Massive

Johnson & Johnson has been fighting talc litigation for years, and the financial exposure is enormous. In December 2025, a Baltimore jury ordered the company and its subsidiaries to pay over $1.5 billion to a woman who claimed decades of exposure to asbestos in J&J's talc-based products caused her peritoneal mesothelioma. That's the kind of verdict that gets boardroom attention.

U.S. District Judge Michael Shipp, who currently oversees the consolidated federal litigation, asked Wolfson to assess whether the proposed expert testimony met federal scientific standards. Her findings are advisory, meaning Shipp can consider objections from both sides before deciding whether to adopt them. But recommendations from court-appointed experts typically carry serious weight.

What the Expert Actually Said

Wolfson's recommendation allows plaintiffs' experts to testify that there's a causal relationship between using Johnson & Johnson talc products and ovarian cancer, a position the company has disputed for years. In a 658-page report, she concluded that the plaintiffs' experts used methodologies reliable enough to be presented to a jury. Importantly, she emphasized that her role wasn't to decide whether the experts were correct, but whether their methods met the legal threshold for admissibility.

She also recommended allowing testimony from Johnson & Johnson's own experts to rebut the plaintiffs' claims, ensuring jurors would hear competing scientific perspectives. That's standard practice in these disputes—the jury gets to hear both sides argue their case.

However, Wolfson agreed with the company on certain limitations. She recommended excluding expert opinions linking heavy metals and fragrance chemicals in the products to cancer, as well as a theory that inhaled talc could migrate to the ovaries. Some requests to exclude testimony remain unresolved, with hearings scheduled for later this month and early February.

Johnson & Johnson Isn't Backing Down

Erik Haas, worldwide vice president of litigation at Johnson & Johnson, told reporters the recommendation was flawed and that the company would appeal to Shipp. He argued that judges have a "gatekeeping duty" to ensure expert opinions presented to juries are reliable. Translation: J&J thinks Wolfson set the bar too low and plans to fight this decision.

The company faces talc litigation on multiple fronts. In October 2025, a legal claim involving 3,000 people was reportedly filed against Johnson & Johnson in the U.K., alleging the company knowingly sold asbestos-contaminated baby powder. The global scope of these lawsuits shows just how widespread the legal exposure has become.

What Happens Next

Judge Shipp will now decide whether to adopt Wolfson's recommendations, likely after considering Johnson & Johnson's objections. If he accepts her findings, the first federal trial could move forward later this year, giving both sides their day in court with expert witnesses presenting dueling scientific theories.

For investors watching Johnson & Johnson, this represents ongoing uncertainty in a litigation saga that's been dragging on for years. The company discontinued its talc-based baby powder in the U.S. in 2020, but the legal consequences continue to accumulate.

JNJ Price Action: Johnson & Johnson shares were down 1.73% at $214.43 at the time of publication on Wednesday. The stock is approaching its 52-week high of $220.11.