Talcum Powder Lawsuits (MDL 2738): What the Record Shows

Talcum powder lawsuits are consolidated in a single federal multidistrict proceeding, MDL No. 2738, in the District of New Jersey. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation reported 69,340 actions pending in the MDL as of October 1, 2026, out of 72,024 filed over the life of the proceeding. The Panel’s transfer order describes the cases as personal injury and wrongful death actions alleging that the plaintiffs or their decedents developed ovarian or uterine cancer after using talc products, along with consumer class actions alleging deceptive marketing. In separate work, the FDA began a survey in 2018 of talc-containing cosmetics for asbestos, and in 2019 it reported that a sample from one lot of Johnson’s Baby Powder contained chrysotile fibers, after which Johnson & Johnson voluntarily recalled that lot. No court has ruled that a talc product caused an individual’s cancer.

What is established vs. what is alleged

Established by the documents reviewed here: the existence and identity of MDL No. 2738 (District of New Jersey, master docket 3:16-md-2738); the Panel’s transfer order of October 4, 2016 and its pending-case count of October 1, 2026; the FDA’s testing of talc-containing cosmetics for asbestos, including its finding about one lot of Johnson’s Baby Powder and the voluntary recall that followed; and the FDA’s statements that asbestos is a known carcinogen and that talc can be contaminated with asbestos during mining.

Alleged, and not decided: that the products caused ovarian or uterine cancer, and, in the consumer class actions, that they were marketed deceptively. The documents reviewed here contain no court finding on causation, and the FDA’s testing program does not decide whether any cosmetic product caused any person’s illness.

Where the claims stand procedurally

The federal claims are consolidated as MDL No. 2738, In re: Johnson & Johnson Talcum Powder Products Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation, in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The Panel’s transfer order, filed October 4, 2016, assigned the litigation to Judge Freda L. Wolfson. The court’s current MDL page and the Panel’s October 1, 2026 reports list Judge Michael A. Shipp as the transferee judge, with Magistrate Judge Rukhsanah L. Singh.

The Panel’s docket summary listing records master docket number 3:16-md-2738, a filing date of July 15, 2016 for the actions before transfer, a transfer date of October 4, 2016, and no closure date. The pending-dockets report for the same date lists 69,340 actions pending and 72,024 filed in total.

An MDL is a pretrial consolidation: it centralizes discovery and pretrial motions, but it does not merge the individual claims into a class. The product liability section covers how defect and failure-to-warn claims are pleaded, and MDLs and class actions explains the difference; related coverage includes Roundup and glyphosate litigation, NEC infant formula litigation and asbestos and mesothelioma litigation.

What the FDA’s testing of talc products found

The FDA says it began a survey in 2018 of talc-containing cosmetic products for asbestos, covering about 50 products, with samples analyzed using polarized light microscopy and transmission electron microscopy and testing carried out on the agency’s behalf by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and AMA Analytical Services, Inc.

• March 5, 2019: the FDA advised consumers not to use certain Claire’s products, samples of which had tested positive for tremolite asbestos.
• May and June 2019: Beauty Plus Global and Claire’s Stores voluntarily recalled products that had tested positive for asbestos.
• September 6, 2019: Beauty Plus Global voluntarily recalled four cosmetic products that had tested positive for asbestos.
• October 18, 2019: the FDA alerted consumers about Johnson’s Baby Powder Lot #22318RB. A sample from that lot was found to contain chrysotile fibers, a type of asbestos. Johnson & Johnson voluntarily recalled the lot that day. A sample from a different lot, #00918RA, tested negative for asbestos, according to the same FDA update.

In its consumer alert on these products, the FDA states that asbestos is a naturally occurring mineral often found near talc, that it is a known carcinogen, and that talc may be contaminated with asbestos during mining if sites are not selected carefully and the ore is not purified sufficiently. Its earlier 2009-2010 talc survey found no asbestos fibers or structures in the samples tested, a result the agency says was limited by how many suppliers and products took part. The FDA has continued the program since, releasing 2021 and 2022 testing data, and it published a white paper and interagency scientific opinions on testing methods in January 2022 while noting that those opinions are not its own policy.

Key dates

• July 15, 2016: the earliest filing date the Panel’s docket summary listing records for the actions later consolidated as MDL 2738.
• October 4, 2016: the Panel’s transfer order creating MDL No. 2738 is filed in the District of New Jersey.
• March 5, 2019: the FDA advises consumers not to use certain Claire’s products that tested positive for tremolite asbestos.
• June 6, 2019: Beauty Plus Global and Claire’s Stores voluntarily recall products that tested positive for asbestos.
• September 6, 2019: Beauty Plus Global voluntarily recalls four products that tested positive for asbestos.
• October 18, 2019: the FDA alerts consumers to Johnson’s Baby Powder Lot #22318RB, a sample of which contained chrysotile fibers, and Johnson & Johnson voluntarily recalls the lot.
• February 4, 2020: the FDA holds a public meeting on testing methods for asbestos in talc and talc-containing cosmetics.
• March 9, 2020: the FDA releases data from its year-long 2019 sampling assignment.
• January 13, 2022: the FDA releases a white paper and technical appendices on testing methods.
• December 7, 2022: the FDA releases data from its 2022 testing of talc-containing cosmetics.
• October 1, 2026: the Panel reports 69,340 actions pending in MDL No. 2738.

What this does not establish

The documents reviewed here do not show a court finding that a talc product caused any person’s cancer. MDL No. 2738 is a pretrial consolidation, and the causation questions in the individual cases have not been decided there.

A recall is not a finding about a product line. The October 2019 recall covered a single lot, and the FDA’s own update records that a sample from a different lot tested negative for asbestos.

The FDA’s asbestos testing is a cosmetics-safety program. It reports what the agency’s laboratories found in the products sampled. It is not a finding that any talc product caused any individual’s illness.

Nothing in the record reviewed here announces or approves a settlement in MDL No. 2738, and nothing here states the value of any claim or predicts any outcome.

Frequently asked questions

Is there a talcum powder settlement?

No settlement is recorded in the documents reviewed here. The Panel’s October 1, 2026 reports and docket listing show the MDL still open, with no closure date, and they record no announced or approved settlement.

Does the FDA say talcum powder causes cancer?

Not in the documents reviewed here. The FDA states that asbestos is a known carcinogen and that talc can be contaminated with asbestos during mining, and it reports the results of testing cosmetics for asbestos. Those are statements about asbestos and about testing results, not a conclusion that any talc product caused any person’s cancer.

What does MDL 2738 mean, and is it a class action?

MDL No. 2738 is the number the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation gave to the consolidated federal talcum powder proceedings in the District of New Jersey. The Panel’s transfer order describes the transferred actions as mainly personal injury and wrongful death cases, plus two consumer class actions alleging deceptive marketing. A multidistrict litigation consolidates pretrial proceedings; it does not turn the personal injury cases into a class.

Was Johnson’s Baby Powder recalled?

Yes. On October 18, 2019, the FDA alerted consumers to Johnson’s Baby Powder Lot #22318RB after a sample from that lot was found to contain chrysotile fibers, and Johnson & Johnson voluntarily recalled that lot the same day. The FDA’s update records that a sample from a different lot tested negative for asbestos.

Where are these cases heard?

In the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, under master docket 3:16-md-2738. The Panel’s reports and the court’s MDL page list Judge Michael A. Shipp as the transferee judge.

Sources

1. U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation: “MDL Statistics Report: Distribution of Pending MDL Dockets by District, October 1, 2026” (link, accessed 2026-10-13)
2. U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation: “MDL Statistics Report: Docket Summary Listing, October 1, 2026” (link, accessed 2026-10-13)
3. U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation: “In re: Johnson & Johnson Talcum Powder Products Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2738, Transfer Order, filed October 4, 2016” (link, accessed 2026-10-13)
4. U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey: “Johnson & Johnson Talcum Powder Litigation, MDL 2738” (link, accessed 2026-10-13)
5. U.S. Food and Drug Administration: “Talc” (link, accessed 2026-10-13)
6. U.S. Food and Drug Administration: “Baby Powder Manufacturer Voluntarily Recalls Product for Asbestos” (link, accessed 2026-10-13)
7. U.S. Food and Drug Administration: “FDA Advises Consumers to Stop Using Certain Cosmetic Products” (link, accessed 2026-10-13)

CollectiveClaim.us publishes general legal information. This article is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Court records and agency actions change; verify current status with the court or agency before relying on it.