Following one jury’s finding of negligence in 2013, Johnson & Johnson is now facing hundreds of baby powder lawsuits alleging a connection between talcum powder and ovarian cancer.

Studies from as far back as the 1970s hint at such a possible connection.

An early study by British researchers found talc particles imbedded in 10 out of 13 ovarian tumors examined. Later, a 1982 study published in the journal Cancer concluded there was a statistical link between use of talcum powder near the genital area and ovarian cancer.

While research to date has not been conclusive, about 20 different studies have found at least some increase in the rate of ovarian cancer in women who use talcum powder.

A more recent study published in June 2013 in the journal Cancer Prevention Research concluded that women who use talcum powder for feminine hygiene may have a 20 to 30 percent greater risk of developing ovarian cancer. One researcher has proposed that as many as 10 percent of cases of ovarian cancer in the U.S. could be attributable to perineal use of talcum powder.

Baby Powder Lawsuits

Johnson & Johnson began to face a slew of baby powder lawsuits after October 2013, when a South Dakota jury found that J&J had been negligent in failing to warn of a risk of ovarian cancer associated with some of its talc-based products.

Plaintiff Deane B. said she was diagnosed with ovarian cancer in 2006 after years of using Johnson’s Baby Powder and Shower to Shower powder. Based on her own knowledge as a medical professional, Deane determined the talc-based powders were her only possible risk factor for ovarian cancer.

Despite the jury’s finding of negligence, they awarded Deane no damages. But since then, hundreds of plaintiffs have come forward with baby powder lawsuits of their own. Generally these lawsuits allege that J&J failed to warn consumers about the risk of baby powder cancer.

To date, Johnson & Johnson claim that because no causal link has been shown between talc and ovarian cancer, it’s not necessary for them to include a warning on the product label.

In March 2015, a baby powder class action lawsuit was dismissed because the plaintiff had alleged only economic damages, not that she had developed baby powder cancer herself. Plaintiff Mona Estrada had originally sued in April 2014, claiming economic damages for her purchase of Johnson’s Baby Powder which she said she would not have purchased had J&J warned her of the increased risk of ovarian cancer. Estrada had proposed a plaintiff class consisting of all women who had purchased Johnson’s Baby Powder.

In dismissing the lawsuit, federal judge Troy L. Nunley found that Estrada had not alleged any actual economic injury since, according to her allegations, she got what she paid for when she bought Johnson’s Baby Powder. Judge Nunley said that to maintain a claim based solely on economic damages, Estrada would have to show that J&J misled her and that she either paid a premium for the product or that she would have purchased a different product had she known the supposed truth.