Supreme Court denies Johnson and Johnson appeal over talcum powder lawsuits

  

The Supreme Court on Monday denied an appeal by Johnson & Johnson seeking to halt lawsuits alleging that the company failed to warn consumers of the dangers posed by talcum powder in their products.

In 2014, Mississippi sued Johnson & Johnson, arguing that the company’s failure to warn users of the talcum powder in its products violated state law. The lawsuit asserted that those who used the company’s products faced “dangerous and potentially lethal” health risks. The lawsuit also alleged that the risk of ovarian cancer increased in women who used the products.

In response, Johnson & Johnson stated that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) found that evidence did not justify requiring a warning on talcum powder products. Because the FDA did not require a warning label, Johnson & Johnson argues that Mississippi is barred from suing the company.

In the petition for a writ of certiorari, Johnson & Johnson argued that Mississippi’s lawsuit “runs headlong” into a US Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act provision that bars states from imposing labeling requirements that are “different from or in addition to” requirements for an item under the federal statute. “The statute leaves no room for a state to impose a requirement for labeling the FDA has flatly rejected,” Johnson & Johnson asserted in the appeal. The Mississippi Supreme Court held that “the pre-emption statute requires the existence in federal law of a positive expression of regulation applicable to a specific product.”

By denying the petition for a writ of certiorari, the Supreme Court left intact the Mississippi Supreme Court’s ruling that the state can sue the company under consumer protection laws.

Johnson & Johnson faces 38,000 lawsuits related to claims that the talcum-based products cause ovarian cancer and other women’s health problems. Johnson & Johnson has stopped selling talcum-based products, including its talcum-based baby powder.

 The Justices did not comment when they denied the petition for a writ of certiorari, which is customary. Justice Alito and Justice Kavanaugh did not take part in the consideration or decision of the petition.

 

Social media is bold.

Social media is young.

Social media raises questions.

 Social media is not satisfied with an answer.

Social media looks at the big picture.

 Social media is interested in every detail.

social media is curious.

 Social media is free.

Social media is irreplaceable.

But never irrelevant.

Social media is you.

(With input from news agency language)

 If you like this story, share it with a friend!  

We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure