Johnson & Johnson's announcement Tuesday that it would discontinue sales of talcum powder-based baby powder will have little impact on the thousands of lawsuits pending across the country, say plaintiffs lawyers.

In its announcement, Johnson & Johnson said it would discontinue the product line in the United States and Canada after it halted shipping in March of hundreds of its items as part of a "portfolio assessment related to COVID-19." The wind down of talc-based baby powder would occur over the coming months, with retailers continuing to sell existing products until they run out.

Neither plaintiffs lawyers nor Johnson & Johnson, which faces tens of thousands of lawsuits alleging its talc products caused ovarian cancer and mesothelioma, a deadly lung cancer, anticipate the move will impact pending lawsuits.

"J&J did today what they should have done decades ago," wrote Leigh O'Dell, a principal at Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles, and Michelle Parfitt of Ashcraft & Gerel. They are co-lead counsel in the multidistrict litigation against Johnson & Johnson, which involves more than 17,000 lawsuits brought by ovarian cancer victims and their families. "J&J has known for years about the cancer-causing potential of its talcum powder products. Finally, it has removed this iconic brand from the market, and as a result, many lives will be saved."

"Now," they continued in an email, "J&J should accept responsibility for the thousands of women who are suffering or who have died as a result of ovarian cancer caused by Johnson's Baby Powder and Shower to Shower. We will continue to zealously advocate for the rights of these women and their families in the MDL and in state courts throughout country."

In a statement, Johnson & Johnson said it would "continue to vigorously defend the product, its safety, and the unfounded allegations against it and the company in the courtroom."

Spokeswoman Kimberly Montagnino said the decision would have "no impact on our legal position."

"We are confident in our legal strategy and our defense, which is supported by decades of scientific evidence showing our talc is safe and does not contain asbestos," she wrote in an email. "The company will continue to defend the product at future trials."

Chris Placitella, of Cohen, Placitella & Roth in Red Bank, New Jersey, who is liaison counsel in the multidistrict litigation, added in an email, "Just as J&J vows to continue fighting vigorously in the courts, we look forward to meeting them there as we continue to pursue justice for our clients."

Johnson & Johnson estimated that its baby powder represented .5% of its consumer health business. "Demand for talc-based Johnson's baby powder in North America has been declining due in large part to changes in consumer habits and fueled by misinformation around the safety of the product and a constant barrage of litigation advertising," the company said.

Johnson & Johnson's baby powder made with cornstarch, rather than talc, will remain on store shelves, as well as talc-based products in other markets around the world "where there is significantly higher consumer demand."

Ted Meadows, another principal at Beasley Allen, who has won several verdicts in Missouri state court against Johnson & Johnson, called it "troubling" that sales would continue in other countries.

"The U.S. has the best consumer protection in the world through our jury system," he wrote in an email. "It is unfortunate that women and families in other countries will continue to face the devastating diagnosis of ovarian cancer because J&J refuses to take the same action without juries to force much-needed responsibility. We plan to continue bringing these claims before juries in courts across the nation."

Last fall, Johnson & Johnson recalled 33,000 bottles of talc-based baby powder after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration found asbestos in them—a claim that plaintiffs lawyers have made in court but a finding that the company disputed in its own testing.

In April, a judge in the multidistrict litigation allowed plaintiffs experts to testify in future talc trials against Johnson & Johnson in federal court.

In state courts, Johnson & Johnson has lost substantial verdicts over its talc-based products, including a $4.7 billion jury award last year in a case involving 22 women with ovarian cancer, or their families, in Missouri. The Missouri Court of Appeal heard oral arguments in that case last month.

Appellate courts have reversed some of the verdicts, including a $417 million award in 2017 in California.

Johnson & Johnson also has suffered verdicts in cases involving mesothelioma victims. Earlier this year, a New Jersey jury awarded $750 million in punitive damages in a case involving four plaintiffs making such allegations over Johnson & Johnson's baby powder.

Chris Panatier, a shareholder at Dallas-based Simon Greenstone Panatier, who won that verdict and many others on behalf of mesothelioma victims, raised skepticism about Johnson & Johnson's reasons behind the announcement. He said the company had not stopped selling its talc-based products prior to now, because they owned the talc mine, the product was "iconic and symbolic," and doing so would "admit they breached the public's trust."

"In my opinion, this wasn't about faltering sales. J&J has never made a lot of money on baby powder," he wrote in an email. "Sure, they have their stated PR reasons, but that is a thin veil over the truth. This decision should have come decades ago, and I believe they are only doing it now because our clients have been brave enough to push their cases forward and shine a light on this dangerous product."