HBW Insight is part of Pharma Intelligence UK Limited

This site is operated by Pharma Intelligence UK Limited, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 13787459 whose registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. The Pharma Intelligence group is owned by Caerus Topco S.à r.l. and all copyright resides with the group.

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use. For high-quality copies or electronic reprints for distribution to colleagues or customers, please call +44 (0) 20 3377 3183

Printed By

UsernamePublicRestriction

Cosmetic News In Brief: J&J Loses Fourth Talc Trial; California Salon Labeling Bill; More

This article was originally published in The Rose Sheet

Executive Summary

In the biggest talc verdict to date, J&J is ordered to pay $110m to a woman who alleges a link between use of the firm’s Johnson’s Baby Powder and ovarian cancer, the fourth such loss for the firm in the same St. Louis court; More cosmetics news in brief.

You may also be interested in...



J&J May Have Just Received Lifeline Out Of St. Louis Talc Tort Morass

A judge in the Missouri state court where J&J has suffered a series of hefty losses declared a mistrial June 19 in the latest talc-cancer case to be heard by jurors. The decision came two days after a US Supreme Court decision that also could trigger reversals of costly J&J verdicts currently under appeal.

California Advances Bill To Require Salon Product Ingredient Labeling

Lawmakers in California are considering a bill that would mandate ingredient labeling on professional cosmetics. Proponents of the bill believe it will help protect salon workers, while the Personal Care Products Council says the proposal is “unworkable” and unnecessary in light of federal requirements that provide salons with extensive Safety Data Sheets for products they use.

J&J Talc Verdict Clears Firm Of Cancer Blame; Is Tide Turning In St. Louis?

A new defense team for J&J got the job done March 3 in the same Missouri court where juries handed down hefty verdicts against the firm last year for failing to warn about talc’s alleged carcinogenicity. This time, the defendant appears to have been successful in punching holes in plaintiff experts’ testimony.

Related Content

Topics

Related Companies

Latest Headlines
See All
UsernamePublicRestriction

Register

RS109236

Ask The Analyst

Ask the Analyst is free for subscribers.  Submit your question and one of our analysts will be in touch.

Your question has been successfully sent to the email address below and we will get back as soon as possible. my@email.address.

All fields are required.

Please make sure all fields are completed.

Please make sure you have filled out all fields

Please make sure you have filled out all fields

Please enter a valid e-mail address

Please enter a valid Phone Number

Ask your question to our analysts

Cancel