Johnson & Johnson Faces New Suit Over Baby Powder

[ad_1]

Litigation and litigation involving claims spoken in Johnson & Johnson’s baby powder Cancer-causing cancer is on the rise again, with a new complaint filed Tuesday on behalf of the National Council of Negro Women.

The group accused the company of “knowingly deceptive marketing to Black women” through decades of free samples, radio campaigns and other efforts at beauty salons, despite internal concerns that the product might be harmful.

The accusations against Johnson & Johnson, in this and other cases, are based on the company’s awareness that its products can cause cancer, even when marketed. Johnson & Johnson is facing more than 25,000 lawsuits over its talc products and their claims to cause ovarian cancer and mesothelioma, and set aside nearly $4 billion last year to fight legal battles.

Some lawsuits blame asbestos-contaminated talc for health problems; internal documents, executives knew for decades from such concerns. Contamination of talc with asbestos – a known carcinogen – can occur during the mining process.

With the latest outfit, the National Council of Black Women highlighted the racial implications of Johnson & Johnson’s sales strategy: focusing on a demographic they knew were more likely to use baby powder, but was at a disadvantage when dealing with potential consequences.

Black women often receive substandard medical advice, are underinsured and receive treatment later than white women, the group’s executive director, Janice Mathis, said at a news conference in Washington on Tuesday.

“You’re kind of Catch-22 – uninsured, later in sickness, not getting good advice, and then add to that a company that intentionally targets you,” said Ms Mathis, accompanied by relatives. Proportion of women who use baby powder and die from ovarian cancer.

Speaking at Tuesday’s event, one woman, Wanda Tidline, said she was diagnosed with ovarian cancer in 2012, although she has no family history of the disease. He said he has been using Johnson & Johnson’s baby powder for “many years”.

“Because of the advertisement, I felt it was safe,” he said.

The lawsuit cited several examples of Johnson & Johnson’s targeted advertising, including a 1992 internal memo that noted “high use” of baby powder among Black women, “opportunities to increase privilege” among demographic segments, and “negative publicity from the healthcare industry.” community on talk.”

In a statement, Johnson & Johnson reiterated that its products are safe, do not contain asbestos and do not cause cancer.

“The charges against our company are false, and the idea that we will deliberately and systematically target a malicious community is illogical and absurd,” the company said.

Since 2000, Johnson & Johnson has sought to reach Black women through promotions at concerts, churches, beauty salons and barbers, and has considered signing Patti LaBelle or Aretha Franklin as spokespersons, according to the lawsuit. A radio campaign in 2010, citing Johnson & Johnson documents, legal filing targeted “curvy African-American Southern women aged 18-49.”

As the courts reopen, several talk lawsuits are scheduled, beginning July 12, with a lawsuit filed on behalf of an Illinois resident who died after being diagnosed with ovarian cancer in 2016.

Tuesday’s lawsuit, filed in state court in New Jersey, where Johnson & Johnson is headquartered, seeks legal costs and support from the company for “equal targeted corrective access to the black community” and medical monitoring and early detection services focused on ovarian cancer.

The company said it would do so last year. remove talc-based baby powder He cited a decline in demand from sales in North America due to changing consumer habits and concerns about the product.

Johnson & Johnson won some talc cases but lost others. The company tried to overturn a multi-billion dollar decision Award to 22 customers, but the Supreme Court refused to hear his appeal in June. Many other cases were combined into a package known as multi-district litigation It is pending in federal court in New Jersey and is the first case to be ordered by the presiding judge to appear before a jury by April.

[ad_2]

Source link

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *