Corporate Accountability: Investigating the Dangers of Everyday Consumer Products
By Chloe Burgoon — December 1, 2025
Introduction
The 2025 Supreme Court ruling in Moore v. Johnson & Johnson (2025), and its sweeping financial and social consequences, marked a pivotal moment in American legal history. The case centered on the wrongful death of Mae Moore, whose family argued she developed an aggressive form of cancer called mesothelioma which is caused by exposure to asbestos. After conducting independent research into her cause of death, they learned her cancer was due to asbestos contamination in Johnson & Johnson talc-based baby powder. Ultimately, the jury awarded $16 million in compensatory damages and $950 million in punitive damages. This substantive sum underscores the court’s and society’s intolerance for corporate misconduct pertaining to consumer safety.
Corporate Accountability
The implications of the ruling extend beyond a single verdict, as the aftermath reflects a broader judicial shift toward corporate accountability and transparency. Through the trial, evidence revealed that Johnson & Johnson knew of potential asbestos contamination dating back to the 1970s, yet the company continued to market its products as pure and safe. Scrutiny intensified when it became clear that Johnson & Johnson had intentionally withheld laboratory results from the public, thereby misleading consumers and highlighting the company’s negligence. The verdict established a powerful precedent for imposing substantial punitive damages in cases involving intentional deception, and despite Johnson & Johnson discontinuing talc-based powders, it remains under investigation.
Supporting Cases
Moore v. Johnson & Johnson is one of many Supreme Court cases that have elevated the legal scrutiny surrounding talc-based products. An earlier landmark verdict came in Echeverria v. Johnson & Johnson (2017), where the jury awarded $417 million to a plaintiff who developed ovarian cancer after long-term baby powder use. Similarly, in Ingham v. Johnson & Johnson (2018), twenty-two women collectively received $4.7 billion for ovarian cancer claims from asbestos contamination. More recent cases like Henderson v. Johnson & Johnson (2025) have revealed additional health risks associated with prolonged asbestos exposure, including mesothelioma. These cases and more illustrate a judicial shift where courts are increasingly skeptical of corporate defenses like bankruptcy maneuvers that seek to limit companies’ liability. Furthermore, the cumulative evidence from years of similar litigation laid the groundwork for the Supreme Court’s strict stance in Moore v. Johnson & Johnson and movement to hold corporations accountable in situations regarding consumer safety and marketing transparency.
Regulatory, Legal, and Industry Impacts
The verdict in Moore v. Johnson & Johnson combined with overwhelming evidence from similar cases has driven significant industry transformations in corporate accountability and consumer safety regulations. The ruling also empowered courts to identify and reject corporate tactics aimed at concealing or limiting liability. Although the contamination caused irreparable harm and cost many lives, these trials spurred broader reforms in consumer protection law, risk disclosure, and corporate governance in both the US and internationally. US federal agencies now have stricter standards for product testing and mandated ingredient reporting, and pharmaceutical and personal care companies have proactively reformulated and relabeled their products to mitigate risk. The impact of landmark cases like Moore v. Johnson & Johnson cannot be overstated as they have contributed to accelerating industry-wide improvements that have saved hundreds of thousands of lives.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision in Moore v. Johnson & Johnson has fundamentally reshaped modern expectations of corporate responsibility in the United States. The imposition of massive punitive damages for intentional non-disclosure and negligent marketing sends a clear message that public health and product safety are a top priority and must be treated with diligence. Looking ahead, the ruling in this case sets a clearer judicial standard for wrongful death cases and mass tort litigation, which influences corporate behavior related to consumer protection.
Bibliography
- Moore v. Johnson & Johnson, No. 21STCV05513 (Cal. Super. Ct. Oct. 6, 2025).
- Echeverria v. Johnson & Johnson, No. BC628228 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles County 2017).
- Ingham v. Johnson & Johnson, No. SC96811 (Mo. Cir. Ct., St. Louis 2018).
- Henderson v. Johnson & Johnson, No. — (La. Civ. Dist. Ct., Parish of Orleans 2025).