A major legal action has been launched in the UK High Court against pharmaceutical giant Johnson & Johnson (J&J), involving more than 3,000 claimants who allege the company knowingly sold asbestos-contaminated baby powder for decades.
The lawsuit, filed in October 2025 by the law firm KP Law, accuses J&J and its spin-off company, Kenvue, of concealing evidence that its mineral-based talc products contained carcinogenic fibers. Lawyers for the claimants estimate that damages could reach hundreds of millions of pounds, marking a historic shift in British product liability litigation.
Core Allegations and Internal Documents
The UK claim mirrors decades of litigation in the United States but relies on specific internal memos and scientific reports dating back to the 1960s.
- Knowledge of Contamination: Internal documents from 1969 and 1973 allegedly show J&J officials were aware that their talc deposits contained “fibrous minerals” like tremolite and actinolite – both forms of asbestos – but failed to warn the public.
- Aggressive Marketing: The lawsuit claims J&J marketed the powder as a “symbol of purity and safety” while simultaneously lobbying regulators to prevent stricter asbestos testing requirements.
- Health Impact: Claimants, including both women and men, have been diagnosed with ovarian cancer and mesothelioma. In some cases, the claims have been filed by families of those who have already passed away.
Johnson & Johnson and Kenvue continue to maintain that their baby powder is safe, asbestos-free, and backed by independent testing from leading health authorities. J&J argues that adverse jury verdicts in the US are “aberrant” and do not reflect scientific consensus.
In a statement to the BBC, the company asserted that its baby powder was always compliant with regulatory standards and that “it does not cause cancer.”1
The UK litigation is expected to be a protracted legal battle, as British courts typically require a higher threshold of scientific proof for causation compared to US civil courts.
However, the sheer volume of claimants and the inclusion of verified internal memos have led legal experts to believe this case will fundamentally change how multinational corporations are held accountable in the UK.
