New Prop 65 Lawsuit Filed Against J&J, Others Over Talc's Safety
The lawsuit, filed by Simmons Hanly Conroy, comes six months after the Lanier Law Firm voluntarily dismissed a similar Prop 65 suit against Johnson & Johnson and names more than a dozen defendants, including CVS and Bausch Health.
January 29, 2020 at 06:48 PM
4 minute read
A new lawsuit alleges that Johnson & Johnson and more than a dozen other companies failed to warn consumers, as required under California's Prop 65 law, that their talcum powder products could cause cancer.
The suit, filed Wednesday in Los Angeles Superior Court by Simmons Hanly Conroy and two other firms, comes six months after the dismissal of a similar Prop 65 suit against Johnson & Johnson. The new case alleges that defendants, in formulating cosmetic talc in 1976, included arsenic and other dangerous chemicals in their products that consumers know nothing about.
"This is a public health crisis that has gone unchecked for decades," said Trent Miracle, a shareholder at Simmons Hanly in Alton, Illinois. "The defendants, who represent brands trusted by millions of consumers, have to be held accountable for causing so much harm and putting so many more people at risk."
The two other law firms filing the suit were Chicago's Abtahi Law Group and South Carolina firm McGowan, Hood & Felder.
In addition to Johnson & Johnson, the suit names Gold Bond maker Sanofi SA and Bausch Health Companies Inc. It also includes retailers CVS Health Corp., Dollar General Corp., Target Corp., Walgreen Co., and Walmart Inc., which sell generic brands of talcum powder products, and their suppliers, Davion Inc., Garcoa Inc., Personal Care Products, Premier Brands of America Inc. and Thornton Industries Inc.
A Sanofi spokeswoman said in an email: "Our Gold Bond Powder products, including all of the ingredients in them, are safe when they are used as directed."
A Walgreen's spokesperson declined to comment, and the other defendants did not respond to requests for comment.
Prop 65, officially California's Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, requires businesses to provide a "clear and reasonable warning" before exposing consumers to carcinogens and other toxins, as defined in California.
In July, a federal judge dismissed a similar Prop 65 suit brought by attorney Mark Lanier, despite opposition from Johnson & Johnson, the only defendant in the case. Johnson & Johnson had argued that Lanier, of the Lanier Law Firm, was stalling the case, which had been set for an Oct. 15 trial.
Lanier had moved to voluntarily dismiss the case due to newly discovered evidence and requested to add more defendants, such as retailer Claire's, which the U.S. Food and Drug Administration found had sold products containing asbestos, and Valeant Pharmaceuticals, now owned by Bausch Health, one of the defendants in the new lawsuit.
Lanier's case, filed in 2018, had involved seven California residents who claim they or their loved ones were misled about the safety of Johnson & Johnson's baby powder and Shower to Shower products, which both contain asbestos, a known carcinogen in California. Originally filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court, his case sought to slap Prop 65 labels on Johnson & Johnson's baby powder and Shower to Shower products, plus obtain restitution and civil penalties of $2,500 per day for each violation.
The new case, filed by California resident Jan Graham, seeks the same penalties and Prop 65 labels on the defendants' products, or, as an alternative, demands replacing talc with cornstarch.
Unlike Lanier's case, which focused on asbestos, the new lawsuit alleges that the talc industry, in attempting to reformulate "talc" as defined in cosmetic products, introduced arsenic, lead and hexavalent chromium into their products.
"The industry has done so in a patent effort to mislead consumers and the general public that the talc used in cosmetics was free of carcinogens or reproductive toxins," the lawsuit says.
The Prop 65 case is separate from the thousands of lawsuits brought by people alleging they got ovarian cancer or mesothelioma from a lifetime of using Johnson & Johnson's talcum powder products. Juries, including those in California, have hit Johnson & Johnson with several verdicts, but the company also has won some. In 2018, a jury in St. Louis awarded $4.7 billion to 22 women, represented by Lanier, who alleged they got ovarian cancer from using Johnson & Johnson's talcum powder products.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllRead the Document: 'Google Must Divest Chrome,' DOJ Says, Proposing Remedies in Search Monopoly Case
3 minute readApple Asks Judge to 'Follow the Majority Practice' in Dismissing Patent Dispute Over Night Vision Technology
AI Startup Founder Defrauded Investors of Millions, US Prosecutors Say
3 minute readUber Not Responsible for Turning Over Information on 'Dangerous Riders' to Competitor, Judge Finds
5 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250