The Alameda County jury attributed 40% of the responsibility to Johnson & Johnson and 60% to Dr. Scholl’s foot powder. The verdict followed a separate $1.9 million award in Massachusetts.
By : Naveen Mavi
A California jury has reportedly awarded $34 million to Kevin Reikes and his wife, Tina Reikes, in a product-liability lawsuit involving allegations that exposure to asbestos-contaminated talcum powder caused mesothelioma. The verdict was delivered on November 9, 2026, in Alameda County Superior Court.
The jury attributed 40% of the responsibility to Johnson & Johnson (J&J), while assigning the remaining 60% to Dr. Scholl’s foot powder. Notably, Johnson & Johnson was the only defendant in the trial, notwithstanding the jury’s allocation of responsibility to another product.
The jury did not award punitive damages. The decision represents another significant development in the continuing litigation against Johnson & Johnson concerning alleged asbestos contamination in cosmetic talc products.
The California verdict came just three days after another jury in Massachusetts awarded approximately $1.9 million in a separate mesothelioma case involving Johnson & Johnson.
Background of the Kevin Reikes Lawsuit
The California proceedings arose from Reikes, et al. v. Block Drug Company, Inc., et al., Case No. 25CV157993, before the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda.
The publicly available court record identifies Kevin M. Reikes and Tina L. Reikes as the plaintiffs. Their complaint was filed on December 5, 2025, alleging that Kevin Reikes developed mesothelioma following exposure to asbestos-containing talcum powder products.
The court record indicates that Kevin Reikes had used Johnson’s Baby Powder from approximately 1976 until 2025. He was diagnosed with mesothelioma in 2025. The litigation concerned exposure to talc products from different sources, including Johnson & Johnson’s products.
The underlying case initially involved several corporate defendants. However, according to the November 9 Law.com report, Johnson & Johnson was the only defendant in the trial that resulted in the $34 million verdict.
Jury Attributes 40% Responsibility to Johnson & Johnson
One of the most significant aspects of the verdict is the jury’s allocation of responsibility between two different talc-product sources.
According to the reported verdict, the jury attributed 40% of the responsibility to Johnson & Johnson and 60% to Dr. Scholl’s foot powder.
The allocation is particularly noteworthy because the manufacturer associated with Dr. Scholl’s foot powder was not a defendant at trial. The jury nevertheless attributed a substantial proportion of responsibility to that product as an alternative source of exposure.
This distinction is important from a legal perspective. Attribution of fault to an alternative exposure source should not automatically be described as a monetary judgment against the manufacturer of that product.
The jury’s allocation also raises an important question concerning the treatment of economic and non-economic damages under California’s comparative-liability framework.
No Punitive Damages Awarded
Despite the substantial compensatory verdict, the jury did not award punitive damages against Johnson & Johnson.
Punitive damages are distinct from compensation for medical expenses, pain and suffering, and other losses. Their purpose is to punish particularly wrongful conduct and deter similar conduct in the future.
The absence of a punitive award is therefore an important feature of the decision. The reported $34 million verdict should not be confused with the substantially larger verdicts in other talc-related proceedings that included punitive damages.
The publicly available reporting does not establish the jury’s precise reasoning for declining to award punitive damages.
Important Pre-Trial Development: Fraudulent Concealment Claims
The pre-trial proceedings in the Reikes litigation also provide an important legal dimension.
In September 2026, Johnson & Johnson sought summary adjudication of the plaintiffs’ fraud-related claims. The publicly indexed September 2 tentative ruling, scheduled for consideration on September 3, granted the application in part and denied it in part.
The court granted summary adjudication concerning the theories of intentional misrepresentation, conspiracy to commit intentional misrepresentation, and conspiracy to commit fraudulent concealment.
However, the court declined to dispose of the fraudulent-concealment claim. It considered the evidence concerning alleged knowledge of asbestos contamination, historical testing, product advertising, and the plaintiffs’ reliance on the perceived safety of the product sufficient to create a triable issue.
The court’s ruling is significant because it distinguishes between an affirmative misrepresentation and the alleged suppression of material safety information.
Importantly, this was a pre-trial determination concerning whether the claims could proceed, not a final finding that every allegation of concealment had been established.
A Second Talc-Related Mesothelioma Verdict in Massachusetts
The California verdict followed another development in Haddad v. Johnson & Johnson, a separate proceeding before the Massachusetts Superior Court.
On November 6, 2026, a jury reportedly awarded approximately $1.9 million against Johnson & Johnson in a case involving the alleged connection between cosmetic talc exposure and mesothelioma.
The case was brought by Hani Haddad, M.D., individually and as the personal representative of the estate of Winifred Haddad. The trial concerned allegations that asbestos allegedly present in Johnson & Johnson’s cosmetic talc products caused Winifred Haddad’s mesothelioma.
The jury reportedly found that Johnson & Johnson’s talc products caused the disease but did not find that the products caused her death. This distinction materially affected the damages outcome.
The trial was conducted in the Superior Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk County, under Case No. 2081CV02285. Courtroom View Network identifies Judge Anthony Campo as the presiding judge and records the trial period as October 19 to November 6, 2026.
The two November verdicts therefore represent separate jury determinations arising from different factual records and different damages claims.
Comparative Analysis of the November 2026 Verdicts
The two verdicts illustrate the varying outcomes of product-liability litigation involving allegations of asbestos contamination in talc products.
The California jury returned a reported $34 million verdict, with 40% responsibility attributed to Johnson & Johnson. In Massachusetts, the jury awarded approximately $1.9 million after finding a connection to mesothelioma but not to the plaintiff’s death.
The figures should not be treated as directly comparable because the underlying claims, evidence, damages and allocation of responsibility were different.
Johnson & Johnson’s Position and the Discontinuation of Talc-Based Baby Powder
Johnson & Johnson has consistently maintained that its talc-based products were safe and did not contain asbestos. The company has also stated that it intends to defend itself against talc-related allegations.
In May 2020, Johnson & Johnson announced the discontinuation of talc-based Johnson’s Baby Powder in the United States and Canada. In August 2022, the company announced its decision to transition its global baby powder portfolio to cornstarch-based products, with the global discontinuation of talc-based Baby Powder planned for 2023.
The company described the transition as a commercial decision and maintained its position regarding the safety of cosmetic talc.
The discontinuation should not, by itself, be treated as an admission of liability or an acknowledgment that the products caused mesothelioma.
The Broader Talc Litigation: What Does Johnson & Johnson’s Latest Filing Reveal?
The litigation remains financially and legally significant for Johnson & Johnson.
In its third-quarter 2026 Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, the company disclosed that its proposed $5.5 billion resolution of ovarian cancer talc litigation does not affect the mesothelioma docket, which remains ongoing.
The filing also disclosed that the present value of the company’s reserve for talc-related matters was approximately $9 billion as of the third quarter of 2026. This amount includes the proposed ovarian cancer settlement, executed settlement agreements, litigation defence costs and other expenses.
The distinction between ovarian cancer litigation and mesothelioma litigation is particularly important. The proposed ovarian cancer settlement does not resolve the separate mesothelioma claims being pursued in state courts.
Consequently, the recent California and Massachusetts verdicts demonstrate that the mesothelioma litigation continues notwithstanding the proposed resolution of the ovarian cancer claims.
Recent Trial Outcomes Demonstrate a Mixed Litigation Landscape
The November verdicts must also be considered against the background of other recent courtroom developments.
In May 2026, an Oklahoma County jury returned a defence verdict in favour of Johnson & Johnson in a mesothelioma case involving allegations concerning asbestos in talcum powder.
In June 2026, a Los Angeles County jury awarded $32 million in compensatory damages to the family of Maria Lozano in another mesothelioma action involving Johnson’s Baby Powder.
More recently, on October 23, 2026, an Ohio jury returned a defence verdict for Johnson & Johnson in Smith v. Avon Products, Inc., et al. The jury found that the plaintiff had failed to establish exposure to asbestos through Johnson & Johnson’s talc products that caused her mesothelioma.
These outcomes demonstrate that talc litigation is being decided on the evidence and legal issues presented in individual proceedings rather than producing a uniform result across all cases.
Legal Significance and What Happens Next?
The Reikes verdict is significant for three principal reasons.
First, the jury’s allocation of 60% responsibility to an alternative product exposure source demonstrates the importance of identifying and evaluating multiple potential sources of asbestos exposure in mesothelioma litigation.
Second, the absence of punitive damages distinguishes the verdict from cases in which juries have awarded substantial exemplary damages in addition to compensation.
Third, the verdict highlights the importance of distinguishing between economic damages, including medical expenses, and non-economic damages, such as pain and suffering and loss of consortium.
Under California Civil Code Section 1431.2, a defendant’s liability for non-economic damages is generally limited to its proportionate share of fault. The California Supreme Court’s decision in DaFonte v. Up-Right, Inc., 2 Cal.4th 593 (1992), explains the continued distinction between economic and non-economic damages under Proposition 51.
Accordingly, the reported 40% allocation should not automatically be used to calculate Johnson & Johnson’s final payment obligation by multiplying $34 million by 40%. The itemised verdict form and final judgment are necessary to determine the precise legal and financial consequences.
The next important developments will be the entry of judgment, any post-trial applications and any appeal pursued by the company.
Sources:
- Law.com – Amanda Bronstad, California Jury Hits J&J With $34M Talc Verdict in Latest Mesothelioma Trial, November 9, 2026 (source article supplied for this report).
- Reikes v. Block Drug Company, Inc., et al. – Alameda County case and pre-trial ruling.
- Haddad v. Johnson & Johnson – Courtroom View Network trial record.
- Law360 – J&J Hit With $1.9M Verdict Over Talc User’s Cancer.
- Johnson & Johnson – Third-quarter 2026 Form 10-Q, SEC.
- Johnson & Johnson – Global transition to cornstarch-based Baby Powder.
- California Civil Code, Section 1431.2.
- DaFonte v. Up-Right, Inc., 2 Cal.4th 593 (1992).
- King & Spalding – October 23, 2026 Johnson & Johnson defence verdict.
- California $32 million Lozano mesothelioma verdict – June 2026.
