×

36.1k
36.1k

Soft paywallJohnson & Johnson Loses Bid to Overturn a $4.7 Billion Baby Powder Verdict (nytimes.com)

submitted by JAlbert653

top 200 commentsshow 500
sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a

[–]stoopkid13 2805 points2806 points  (50 children)

Note, this isnt a real appeal. Circuit courts in Missouri are trial courts, and burlison is the judge who presided over the underlying trial. This is really just a procedural step to get before the appellate court.

[–]putsch80 524 points525 points  (30 children)

Thank you. There are still at least two appellate steps left in this process (Missouri Court of Appeals and the Missouri Supreme Court). The case is also large enough that it might attract the attention of the U.S. Supreme Court (possibly on the issue as to whether the punitive damages are so excessive as to violate due process...yes, that's an issue SCOTUS has previously expressed interest in), thereby resulting in a possible third level of appeal.

In short, the case has a long ways to go before the judgement become final and unappealable.

[–]lucretius_ 88 points89 points  (7 children)

IIRC, there is a big jurisdictional issue with this case because of the Bristol-Myers-Squibb decision. For many plaintiffs, the only connection the case had to St. Louis/Missouri was that some of the labels used on the bottles came from a printer in Earth City, MO. BMS essentially already says the MO court likely is lacking proper jurisdiction, but it's still somewhat debatable. If SCOTUS ever takes a look at this, it might be for jurisdictional issues rather than for the punitive damages problem, but it could discuss both.

I also think the appellate courts in Missouri have already reversed a number of rulings on talc coming out of St. Louis/St. Louis County (and even this same judge) on jurisdictional grounds, so I doubt J&J is ever going to have to pay the $4.5B. It'll be interesting to see how this pans out with the whole change in public perception of J&J over the last few weeks.

[–]putsch80 15 points16 points  (6 children)

Was the plaintiff from St. Louis or a user of the product in St. Louis? Because if either of those are true, it would seem to remove the case from the Bristol decision. The Keeton decision referenced in Bristol allows assertion of specific jurisdiction to those injured by use of a product in the forum state. And the court also stated the following, which should allow her to sue in Missouri if she is a MO resident:

Alternatively, the plaintiffs who are residents of a particular State—for example, the 92 plaintiffs from Texas and the 71 from Ohio—could probably sue together in their home States.

In any event, I agree with you that this would definitely be something the Supreme Court might want to take up on the personal jurisdictional issues as well.

[–]stoopkid13 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Iirc, the name plaintiff was, but most had no relationship with missouri

[–]lucretius_ 4 points5 points  (1 child)

It looks like only 5 of the 22 plaintiffs are from MO. I agree that those five have the right to sue in MO, but the others may not given the BMS decision.

Here's another article discussing previous decision by Burlison on a separate talc case that had only 2 MO residents among 59 plaintiffs. The article discusses that ruling in light of BMS, which was used to overturn a previous MO court decision. Interesting stuff, for sure. I'm still guessing the plaintiffs in th $4.5B case lose on appeal, but I've been surprised before.

load more comments (3 replies)

    [–]Agentuna 9 points10 points  (7 children)

    I fail to understand how a 10:1 punitive damages award violates due process. Could you explain like I was 5?

    [–]Shorties_Kid 13 points14 points  (5 children)

    The case this comes from, State Farm v Campbell, had an issue of punitive damages far more than 10x what the judgement was for. The SCOTUS knew this was an issue and they had to draw the line somewhere. They chose 10:1 because it seemed reasonable. Also, they did not say this strictly is against the rules, just that it would make them raise an eyebrow.

    load more comments (1 reply)

      load more comments (14 replies)

        [–]Roarks_Inferno 183 points184 points  (14 children)

        I upvoted because it sounds like you know what you’re talking about, but to be honest, I have no idea what you mean.

        Why the hell don’t they just have straightforward numbering and naming for court proceedings? Why is it appellate, chancery, JP, common pleas, etc etc etc.

        The only few that are somewhat self explanatory to the general public are divorce and small claims... well and The People’s Court and Night Court.

        [–]joshuads 132 points133 points  (9 children)

        Why the hell don’t they just have straightforward numbering and naming for court proceedings?

        Court are different in different states. In NY, the court of appeals is highest court, and the Supreme Court is a trial court. That is the opposite of most states. So unless you know each state's naming conventions, you are going to be confused.

        Adding to that, this article is about the denial of a motion in the trial court, but the name of the motion is not recited. It was most likely a motion for a judgment as a matter of law, but it is not stated in the article.

        Confusing naming conventions and bad articles combine for a confused public.

        [–]FGND 54 points55 points  (2 children)

        In NY, the court of appeals is highest court, and the Supreme Court is a trial court.

        FYI, this is the NY Supreme Court, not the Supreme Court of the United States. I know this may seem dumb, but there are a lot of people who don't even know that state and federal governments are different things.

        [–]Tantric989 12 points13 points  (2 children)

        I may be a simple man, but after reading about NY I thought to myself that I'd like to have a "pizza of appeals" if there is apparently something above "supreme pizza' that I did not know about.

        load more comments (3 replies)

          load more comments (3 replies)

            load more comments (4 replies)

              [–]sh1nes 4131 points4132 points  (534 children)

              This is random but the documentary 'Born Rich' was done by one of the heirs to the J&J money.

              [–]donaldfranklinhornii 2459 points2460 points  (455 children)

              I saw it on youtube. They were insufferable. Every person on the screen reeked of pretension and narcissism.

              [–]sh1nes 1910 points1911 points  (420 children)

              I found it interesting how that one kid sued the J&J kid to try to prevent the doc from being released and then showed up at the release party like it was no big deal. Like these extremely rich people just have teams of minions protecting their interests and they just go on with their lives somewhat oblivious to all of it.

              [–][deleted] 1282 points1283 points  (368 children)

              Like these extremely rich people just have teams of minions protecting their interests and they just go on with their lives somewhat oblivious to all of it.

              That exactly what it is. It's pretty ridiculous that these same people appeal to the value of hard work or talent in making your fortune.

              I did it myself! I'm smart!

              Yeah, you paid a bunch of professionals money you didn't earn to do that for you. Your only value comes from owning something, which is ass backwards if you want to live in a society where merit matters more than birthrights.

              [–]Costco1L 474 points475 points  (233 children)

              A major problem is that current US estate taxes mostly affect those from moderately wealthy backgrounds; they do nothing for the families with $100 million and up; there are just too many ways to avoid paying them, usually through trusts but also things like asset shifting through (sometimes sham) companies, offshore banking, etc.

              [–]publicbigguns 279 points280 points  (73 children)

              I think people realize that the ultra wealthy play by a diffrent set of rules. I just dont think that people realize how fucking amazing it is to essentially buy the laws you want.

              [–]centersolace 385 points386 points  (68 children)

              It's amazing how the Panama Papers came out and confirmed this and nobody cared.

              [–]kgal1298 6 points7 points  (2 children)

              Except for in Iceland they cared.

              [–]CCC19 3 points4 points  (0 children)

              I think they just made the first charges in a legal case from the Panama Papers in the U.S.

              load more comments (3 replies)

                load more comments (4 replies)

                  [–][deleted] 346 points347 points  (66 children)

                  But haven't you heard? Estate taxes are terrible! All my republican friends who will never make enough in their lives to be affected by it have told me so!

                  [–]Suza751 135 points136 points  (2 children)

                  dude they're just embarrassed millionaires, just you wait

                  [–][deleted] 11 points12 points  (0 children)

                  Temporarily embarrassed millionaires

                  load more comments (1 reply)

                    load more comments (57 replies)

                      [–][deleted] 33 points34 points  (12 children)

                      You're not "moderately" wealthy if you're passing down over $11MM.

                      [–]gutteral-noises 36 points37 points  (42 children)

                      So this is going to sound odd. But I am literally being trained in how to move that money around and keep stuff from being taxed. I am an accounting major in college right now. It was literally a test question on one of my finals. But the most interesting thing is that you don’t have to be rich to do the money stuff that rich people do. People just don’t know the things they can do with money. Creating cover agencies for asset movement is extremely easy and legal.

                      [–]thegamenerd[🍰] 18 points19 points  (3 children)

                      Would you mind going into the details on how?

                      [–]xbroodmetalx 5 points6 points  (3 children)

                      Or they don't have money to do things with.

                      [–][deleted] 11 points12 points  (1 child)

                      Rich people don't know how to do the stuff rich people do. That's why they hire accountants and lawyers to do for them.

                      load more comments (32 replies)

                        load more comments (36 replies)

                          [–]princetrunks 3 points4 points  (0 children)

                          I think your comment just made most of downtown Manhattan sneeze.

                          load more comments (133 replies)

                            [–]dtabitt 90 points91 points  (18 children)

                            Like these extremely rich people just have teams of minions protecting their interests and they just go on with their lives somewhat oblivious to all of it.

                            One of my dad's college friends ended up doing extremely well. Unless you knew about it, you probably had no idea. They lived in a nice neighborhood, but nothing gave away that the guy was probably banking 10 million a year. The only outward signs, maybe, was that everyone in the house had a car - 2 adults, 3 kids. I think only one of the vehicles was new. Other than that, nothing about these people screamed mega rich.

                            I really didn't know about all this til years later, but I had one clue that my child brain always remembered. The one son was about my age and he had the GI Joe Aircraft Carrier. I knew 2 kids who ever had one. And he had a personal army of Cobra foot soldiers. I had one. I knew there was something different about his situation compared to mine.

                            All of his kids were nice to me. I don't recall a single, "I'm rich, you're not" moment. They just had more toys than me and that was really the only difference between us. AFAIK, the dad kept them all grounded as shit in reality. He grew up some sort of middle classish, but certainly nothing remotely close to what he obtained. Of course he was making some of those millions a year illegally, but that's another story.

                            My point to all this is that it really is about how they are raised.

                            [–][deleted] 40 points41 points  (7 children)

                            My point to all this is that it really is about how they are raised.

                            How they are raised often seems dependent on where daddy or that matter mommy got their money. If dad/mom made it on their own they seem to more likely to raise their kids to be grounded and value the dollar more. If it was handed to them the kids are more likely to be spoiled brats.

                            [–]AkioDAccolade 22 points23 points  (6 children)

                            I have read that new wealth doesn’t translate well generationally, that you may get 2-3 generations of security. I’d imagine it would be more how his kid raised their kids. You have generationally wealthy parents raising kids. I imagine it’s harder to teach value when you’ve never experienced it yourself.

                            [–]Armed_Accountant 38 points39 points  (5 children)

                            Usually three generations for the absolute majority (9 to 1):

                            http://time.com/money/3925308/rich-families-lose-wealth/

                            tl;dr: 70% of wealthy families lose their wealth by the second generation, 90% by the third generation.

                            I remember a quote from a pretty decent book called "Those who remain" (gets kinda repetitive) that - although of arguable accuracy - really applies to most of the idiocy we see these days:

                            hard times create strong men,
                            strong men create good times,
                            good times create weak men,
                            weak men create hard times.

                            [–]aegrisomnia21 15 points16 points  (2 children)

                            The entire western world is currently on step 4

                            load more comments (2 replies)

                              [–]gettinshwiffty72 48 points49 points  (0 children)

                              I grew up with a super close friend, who was damn near my older brother from a different mother (also different father our families were super close. Our dads grew up together). I found out quite recently that the father/dads friend of the house was incredibly successful. Never would have guessed they always had the worst beat up old cars, house was just above average, however they did have a dope pool though. The only thing that gave me the "duh" moment was the spot and land that the house was on... but younger me just figured they live out in the middle of nowhere so it wasn't anything special to young me. Turns out they owned ALL of the middle of nowhere.......

                              I agree its all about how they are raised!

                              [–]SirDigbyChknCaesar 19 points20 points  (0 children)

                              Did you know that the US Navy has more GI Joe aircraft carriers than the entire rest of the world combined?

                              [–]surnat 3 points4 points  (1 child)

                              I remember seeing that GI Joe aircraft carrier at a local theme park and how awesome it looked. But yes, good sign there.

                              load more comments (6 replies)

                                [–]emdeemcd 19 points20 points  (3 children)

                                You ever read The Once and Future King by TH White? It's a re-telling of the King Arthur legend, originally published as a whole in 1958. The theme of the nobles treating life (war, specifically) like a game despite it ruining the lives of the vast majority of people was the most important lesson Merlin was trying to teach the young Arthur. The nobles themselves were immune to the negative effects of their own actions - they were dressed in "armour" while everyone else wasn't. Merlin didn't want Arthur to grow up to be a king that acted in a way that hurt everyone else just because he himself would never feel the repercussions.

                                https://i.imgur.com/YCQyWkQ.jpg

                                [–]UtopianPablo 4 points5 points  (2 children)

                                Great book, it doesn't seem like as many people read it these days. Another big theme was "Might for Right" instead of "Might makes Right."

                                [–]Drunk_Skunk1 15 points16 points  (2 children)

                                I think the kids parents and advisors were against it, not the kid in question himself. The part that always fucked with me is ivankas pitty me excuse over her fathers response to being bankrupt. He was talking about how the homeless man on the street was richer than he was. It was so humbling for ivanka. Yet, they still had a limo and a place(s) to live. Bunch of fuck-tards!!

                                [–]donaldfranklinhornii 31 points32 points  (18 children)

                                I did enjoy young Ivanka. She was feckless even then! (I won't call her a cunt because I found Jesus)

                                [–]Notevenkimjongun 66 points67 points  (7 children)

                                I got you, bro. Ivanka is a feckless cunt.

                                load more comments (10 replies)

                                  load more comments (6 replies)

                                    [–][deleted] 36 points37 points  (0 children)

                                    That's pretty common among people that have literally no challenges in life.

                                    [–]jjdubbs 15 points16 points  (3 children)

                                    I went to college with the Hornblower kid. He was pretty nice and low key. The rest were awful.

                                    [–]Series_of_Accidents 16 points17 points  (2 children)

                                    There was one kid that was actually pretty grounded and pitiable. I think it was the Vanderbilt kid, but I don't remember. It was the one who grew up being told he was poor and his uncle took him around the city and pointed to all the buildings they owned and told a little kid that they belonged to him. Pretty fucked up. But he seemed decently ok if I recall correctly.

                                    Edit: found the part where he describes finding out he's rich

                                    [–]jscummy 6 points7 points  (1 child)

                                    Doesn't the JnJ kid say that too? I remember him finding out he was rich when he saw his dad on the Forbes list.

                                    [–]Series_of_Accidents 12 points13 points  (0 children)

                                    Yeah, he mentions that too. A lot of them didn't realize it growing up. Still, throughout the doc he was the most grounded. Rides the subway, has a job that pays $50k a year, depressed, thinks the whole system is fundamentally unfair. Just more normal than the rest of them.

                                    [–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

                                    They probably smelled annoyingly good too.

                                    load more comments (25 replies)

                                      [–][deleted] 249 points250 points  (36 children)

                                      The sister of that heir lead a wild life, she got engaged to Tila Tequila and died shortly after due to missing her diabetes medication.

                                      [–]Roxy_j_summers 123 points124 points  (13 children)

                                      “Due to missing her diabetes medication” that’s suspect, but no matter what it’s a tragic ending.

                                      [–]redemption2021 119 points120 points  (3 children)

                                      Not really that suspect when you realize that she was an alcoholic that had been in two diabetic comas previously.

                                      [–]lanbrocalrissian 13 points14 points  (0 children)

                                      Oof a type one(I'm assuming) diabetic that's an alcoholic. A person like that should be on an insulin pump.

                                      [–]gypsybacon 23 points24 points  (1 child)

                                      So she made good life choices then.

                                      [–]Hugo154 20 points21 points  (5 children)

                                      Money apparently can't buy medication adherence!

                                      [–][deleted] 11 points12 points  (0 children)

                                      Or a functioning pancreas it would seem.

                                      [–]ravenhelix 2 points3 points  (0 children)

                                      Guess she lacked a Glucose Guardian

                                      load more comments (3 replies)

                                        [–]listen108 8 points9 points  (0 children)

                                        Tila Tequila claims the illuminati had her killed because they were planning on coming out against the illuminati or something.

                                        [–]38888888 8 points9 points  (1 child)

                                        That is a very ssuspicious way to die. Maybe that's code for overdosed. You'd have to ignore so many red flags to die without just taking insulin. My brother is type 1 and we were just talking about this the other day. Seems like you would collapse from high/low blood sugar and a paramedic would figure it out.

                                        [–]papercutNightmare 15 points16 points  (6 children)

                                        Tila Tequila?! Haven't heard that name in awhile! Have to go look her up now.

                                        [–]twodeepfouryou 27 points28 points  (3 children)

                                        Spoiler: she's insane

                                        [–]Buymeajuice 32 points33 points  (0 children)

                                        My parent's bought the house I grew up in from one of the people from this family. The son had lived in the house and apparently threw lots of big parties where it wasn't uncommon to have strangers walking television sets out of the party down the street. The son ended up dying and the sad father sold it to my dad over someone else who may have actually offered more money saying "Give it to the man with the family." My dad had the same first name as this guy's son.

                                        [–]pinnerpanner 6 points7 points  (3 children)

                                        Whatever happened to Tila Tequila?

                                        [–]Dildokin 12 points13 points  (1 child)

                                        Last i checked she was a nazi ranting online, litterally. Its sad, she was having like a psychotic break

                                        load more comments (1 reply)

                                          load more comments (10 replies)

                                            [–]rawker86 40 points41 points  (4 children)

                                            is that the one where the kid asked his dad what he should do for the rest of his life (since he never will need money or a job) and the dad is like "you could collect college degrees"?

                                            [–]Icantcomeupwithshit 71 points72 points  (0 children)

                                            Keep watching the documentaries Jamie Johnson does, Born Rich, The One Percent. He may be a shitty narrator but he really gives insight into the displacement of the 99%. Maybe that entitled shithead cares more than the rest of the entitled shitheads.

                                            [–]goatch33se 20 points21 points  (1 child)

                                            I bet Jamie Johnson is shitting in his dad’s hat over this fiasco.

                                            [–]emajn 93 points94 points  (21 children)

                                            All this stuff with J&J is weird to see because my dad works for them as a building maintenance guy. It's undeniable the company he works for is despicable and deserves anything that is coming thier way. It just sucks that pee-ons like him will be the first to have his job outsourced to "save money" in this aftermath.

                                            [–]rawker86 110 points111 points  (4 children)

                                            your spelling of "peon" is wrong, yet it still makes a lot of sense. bravo.

                                            [–]bigtfatty 44 points45 points  (0 children)

                                            Pretty sure it was purposeful

                                            load more comments (3 replies)

                                              [–]viciousbreed 18 points19 points  (0 children)

                                              pee-ons

                                              Not sure if intentional /r/BoneAppleTea or not, but I love it.

                                              [–]gamefreak0294 10 points11 points  (0 children)

                                              Gotta keep those cocaine buckets full somehow.

                                              load more comments (14 replies)

                                                [–]Trollkiller614 9 points10 points  (0 children)

                                                That whole documentary makes me cringe. All those egos smh

                                                load more comments (8 replies)

                                                  [–]Plutocrat42 1417 points1418 points  (150 children)

                                                  That was a desperate play, they are liable for a lot if these charges are true. I had it used on me as a child too God knows how many have been exposed to asbestos.

                                                  [–]einsibongo 778 points779 points  (102 children)

                                                  That's what this was about, my ass was covered in asbestos!?

                                                  [–]Genesis111112 546 points547 points  (50 children)

                                                  yep and they knew about it for decades and still did nothing.... tbh I don't see how they could not have known all along and when I say they knew about it for decades that came straight from a headline last week about J&J using asbestos in their baby powder.

                                                  [–]dtabitt 111 points112 points  (38 children)

                                                  I say they knew about it for decades that came straight from a headline last week about J&J using asbestos in their baby powder.

                                                  So, like, how did no one else report it? Are there odds of class action by workers who were working with this stuff?

                                                  [–]ZhugeTsuki 155 points156 points  (14 children)

                                                  Id imagine not many people knew. If i understand correctly its not like they went out of their way to have asbestos as an ingredient, its just that talc and asbestos form under the same conditions so most talc is likley contaminated with asbestos. Seems like something the science or QC branch of J&j would have known about and reported, but not something the average worker knew.

                                                  [–]FindingMyPossible 38 points39 points  (12 children)

                                                  Any idea how much of the talc was really asbestos?

                                                  [–]zombiechowder 49 points50 points  (10 children)

                                                  No specific numbers, but one study found the amount to be “rather high”

                                                  [–]hardolaf 70 points71 points  (5 children)

                                                  And that was the only study that found more than trace amounts. The scientist also declined to file his report with the CDC and FDA so there's no public record of his results. The other 19 labs that tested their products in the same year all filed their results with the FDA and CDC where they detected trace amounts below the measurable sensitivity of the best equipment available to them. That put that contamination at least two orders of magnitude below the legal threshold and on-par with background contamination in cities.

                                                  [–]Anus_of_Aeneas 37 points38 points  (3 children)

                                                  Yeah I remember looking into this and it really does seem like a bullshit court ruling which is absolutely not backed up by science. But of course this is reddit, so people just go with whatever feels like the biggest blow to J&J.

                                                  [–]tuyguy 7 points8 points  (1 child)

                                                  I'm pretty baffled by all this tbh. JnJ argue that thousands of scientific studies prove that there's no asbestos in their baby powder. Assuming this is true, and I see no room for ambiguity, then there's no case right? So on what grounds are all the courts now saying JnJ is in deep trouble?

                                                  load more comments (1 reply)

                                                    load more comments (1 reply)

                                                      load more comments (4 replies)

                                                        load more comments (1 reply)

                                                          load more comments (1 reply)

                                                            [–]ScaryScarabBM 28 points29 points  (12 children)

                                                            Possibly but for 2 decades?, how many people is that?, I wonder if they’d even bother.

                                                            [–]farnsworthparabox 23 points24 points  (5 children)

                                                            Proof of purchase required. I hope your parents saved their baby powder receipts.

                                                            [–]PearlescentJen 19 points20 points  (3 children)

                                                            That's the thing. My mom beat stage 4 ovarian cancer after a hell of a long fight about 5 years ago. She's used powder almost her entire life. She grew up in the 50s when women used a lot of powder and it was routine to put it on after bathing. But she never kept any reciepts. We contacted a firm involved with the case and since she didn't have any proof of purchase she couldn't sign on to the lawsuit.

                                                            [–]TheLightningL0rd 23 points24 points  (2 children)

                                                            Who the fuck saves 2 decades worth of receipts for baby powder.... This is so shitty, but I mean, I guess legally how would you even do anything about it at that point?

                                                            [–]PearlescentJen 6 points7 points  (0 children)

                                                            It didn't even have to be that. The paralegal said she just needed one reciept or even an old bottle of it. It's crazy because that is literally the only powder she ever used. She never trusted any other brand.

                                                            I'm sure if we tried hard enough we could find something but she didn't want to pursue it. Dealing with the cancer took a lot out of her and I think she's just over it. But we're all glad this has come to light and that Johnson & Johnson will be held accountable if it is determined they covered it up.

                                                            load more comments (1 reply)

                                                              load more comments (1 reply)

                                                                [–]TheGaurdian10000 21 points22 points  (4 children)

                                                                Reminds me of the play Radium Girls

                                                                [–]mtm5891 5 points6 points  (0 children)

                                                                the play Radium Girls

                                                                Which was based on a real group of women that were poisoned by the radium-laced paint that worked with

                                                                [–]TheDerekCarr 4 points5 points  (1 child)

                                                                Wasn't that real too though?

                                                                [–]tjl73 3 points4 points  (0 children)

                                                                Yep. I even have a Russian watch that used Radium paint on it's face and hands. It used to be more common, though.

                                                                load more comments (1 reply)

                                                                  load more comments (1 reply)

                                                                    [–]emh1389 16 points17 points  (9 children)

                                                                    They paid for the results to be altered and lobbied for lower restrictions on asbestos.

                                                                    [–]Tantric989 8 points9 points  (8 children)

                                                                    Yeah, you can see in their documents from reuters how in the 90's/2000's the tests were literally created and set up by J&J and they had a threshold where they called "statistically insignificant" so they'd raise it so positive samples would be ignored.

                                                                    [–]jagedlion 18 points19 points  (0 children)

                                                                    Extremely misleading. Talc and asbestos occur together and are mined together. That isn't a choice or decision to make. JJ does clean the talc very significantly based on regulations on asbestos exposure. There remains some, there will always remain some. It's a simple property of talc.

                                                                    [–]samglit 19 points20 points  (0 children)

                                                                    using asbestos

                                                                    Not defending them, but words matter. Negligent about asbestos contamination is not the same as intentionally adding carcinogens in (like what tobacco companies did).

                                                                    It’s like saying a poultry company was using salmonella in their egg production.

                                                                    [–]hardolaf 16 points17 points  (0 children)

                                                                    they knew about it for decades and still did nothing

                                                                    They knew in 1954 that their Italian source contained 5% contaminants by weight. They started processing those out as best they could to get them down to less than 1% by weight in 1956. By 1972 (when asbestos was banned), the equipment in use by the CDC and FDA had insufficient sensitivity to detect how much, if any, asbestos or similar fibers were present in random samples collected from retail locations. That means that the amount was at least 2 orders of magnitude less than the allowable limit.

                                                                    However, up until 1972, their talc powder destined for industrial use only contained up to 3% contaminants by weight (but the amount of asbestos was never formally measured in it, just total contaminants).

                                                                    load more comments (7 replies)

                                                                      [–][deleted] 58 points59 points  (5 children)

                                                                      So that's why I've never been able to light my farts on fire

                                                                      [–][deleted] 37 points38 points  (3 children)

                                                                      Yup. Now you just have ass-mesothelioma. Not quite as entertaining as ass-flamethrower.

                                                                      [–]IolausTelcontar 7 points8 points  (0 children)

                                                                      ass-mesothelioma

                                                                      Thank you. Made my day.

                                                                      [–]Overcriticalengineer 2 points3 points  (1 child)

                                                                      Gives you assthma.

                                                                      load more comments (1 reply)

                                                                        [–]Singing_Sea_Shanties 18 points19 points  (3 children)

                                                                        If you think getting mesothelioma from breathing it in was bad....

                                                                        [–]just_dots[🍰] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

                                                                        Mesothelioma < assothelioma

                                                                        load more comments (2 replies)

                                                                          load more comments (41 replies)

                                                                            [–]Sharpopotamus 20 points21 points  (14 children)

                                                                            If J&J talc truly contained asbestos sufficient to cause disease, why hasn’t a significant percentage of the population ended up with mesothelioma? We’re talking about a giant percentage of the population using these talc products.

                                                                            [–]horsenbuggy 11 points12 points  (3 children)

                                                                            They are really looking into how much of the ovarian cancer rate (especially in older women) can be linked to baby powder. I think they may eventually find out other reproductive cancers are linked, too.

                                                                            load more comments (10 replies)

                                                                              [–][deleted] 57 points58 points  (5 children)

                                                                              Just think of how many more years we need to listen to IF YOU OR A LOVED ONE HAVE BEEN DIAGNOSED WITH MESOTHELIOMA, YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO FINANCIAL COMPENSATION blasted at 2:00am

                                                                              [–]IamChantus 12 points13 points  (3 children)

                                                                              ASS-MESOTHELIOMA

                                                                              Credit to u/FreeOfK

                                                                              load more comments (1 reply)

                                                                                [–]hardolaf 20 points21 points  (2 children)

                                                                                God knows how many have been exposed to asbestos

                                                                                Every single person to have been around an automobile with brake pads from before the 1960s, every single person to have lived on the Earth, every single person to have lived in any building built between the early 1800s and the late 1900s, every person to have ever gone in or near caves or mines, etc.

                                                                                Even if the baby powder contained asbestos, no test ever showed that it was higher than the

                                                                                1. Allowable amounts by even modern standards

                                                                                2. Higher than the background contamination level (i.e. air born at street level) in cities of the day

                                                                                [–]jerkfacebeaversucks 45 points46 points  (1 child)

                                                                                God knows how many have been exposed to asbestos.

                                                                                Every baby was exposed, me included. This isn't limited to talc though. This opens up a much larger can of worms that we're not considering. Asbestos is a very abundant mineral, and pretty much every consumer product that we dig out of the ground is in the same boat as talc. Some may have much higher or lower concentrations, but it's likely (almost certain?) they're all contaminated to some degree.

                                                                                [–]stoopkid13 66 points67 points  (9 children)

                                                                                I dont think it's a desperate play. Even if the underlying claim is meritorious, I think J&J has a good argument that punitives should be reduced to 5x compensatory.

                                                                                This particular bid wasnt disparate either. It was a necessary procedural step to get before an appellate court.

                                                                                [–][deleted] 27 points28 points  (0 children)

                                                                                This guy lawyers

                                                                                load more comments (8 replies)

                                                                                  load more comments (10 replies)

                                                                                    [–]CreativeGPX 390 points391 points  (68 children)

                                                                                    For reference, their net income in 2017 was $1.3 billion and their revenue in 2017 was $76.45 billion.

                                                                                    [–]iamwhiskerbiscuit 252 points253 points  (56 children)

                                                                                    But God knows how much they're dumping in offshore banking schemes. Do you honestly believe their profit margin is little more than 1%? They knowingly exposed infants to asbestos for Christ's sake! Do you really expect they... Of all people are gonna be honest about their finances when offshore banking schemes are perfectly legal?

                                                                                    [–][deleted] 236 points237 points  (28 children)

                                                                                    Actually ya. That's about a 2% margin and that wouldn't be out of the normal for a low margin consumer good company. Their profit before R&D was about 13% but they spent 10 billion on R&D. Here is their 10-k if you would like to see for youself

                                                                                    [–]stigsmotocousin 50 points51 points  (1 child)

                                                                                    Researching how to not use asbestos, by chance?

                                                                                    [–]beanburritobandit 43 points44 points  (0 children)

                                                                                    The funny thing about research is that you don't need to produce results if you're paid not to.

                                                                                    load more comments (26 replies)

                                                                                      [–]giant-nougat-monster 74 points75 points  (7 children)

                                                                                      I’m an accountant (and working on an MBA). Parent companies must consolidate their financial statements with all of the subsidiaries they have control over (lower control levels require different reporting, but it’s still covered). These sized firms get audited every year by a Big 4 accounting firm to make sure their financials are fairly represented. I’m not saying things can’t slip, but it’s very likely J&Js financials were fairly represented in all material respects (that info is publicly available).

                                                                                      It’s kinda a myth, or at the very least heavily misunderstood, that companies can hide large amounts of anything. Sarbanes Oxley changed the game when Enron happened.

                                                                                      [–]hamsterkris 18 points19 points  (3 children)

                                                                                      What about what Amazon did? They had one company that owned the intellectual property of Amazon and then they'd pay large sums to themselves in "royalties" from another company to decrease the profit and thus the taxable income of Amazon.

                                                                                      Explained here, scroll to "Project Goldcrest". https://www.newsweek.com/2016/07/22/amazon-jeff-bezos-taxes-479814.html

                                                                                      Or what Apple did revealed through the paradise papers?

                                                                                      https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41889787

                                                                                      [–]giant-nougat-monster 29 points30 points  (2 children)

                                                                                      It depends on the context we are discussing. On the financial reporting side of things, that is an expense for Amazon and will reduce their net income. However, the intellectual property is still going to be consolidated on their balance sheet. They can’t hide assets or liabilities, but they can take steps to reduce net income. This is perfectly fair play as long as it’s done under GAAP rules. They can reduce their net income playing by the rules and still have fairly represented financial statements. And at the end of the day, that matters a lot more given the damage fraud can do to the average shareholder (you and me, people with retirement plans).

                                                                                      Now in J&Js context with a fine, $5B is still a huge hit. That’s a third of their current cash and equivalents on hand, something like 8.5% hit to their last year end cash flow. It absolutely will hurt, if at the end of the legal process it stays that high.

                                                                                      load more comments (3 replies)

                                                                                        [–]ObiWanCanShowMe 4 points5 points  (0 children)

                                                                                        But God knows how much they're dumping in offshore banking schemes.

                                                                                        That's not how it works. I mean it works for evil rich guys but not mega corporations. They just use legitimate (but scummy) tax holes and are audited every year.

                                                                                        [–][deleted] 27 points28 points  (9 children)

                                                                                        Do you really expect they... Of all people are gonna be honest about their finances when offshore banking schemes are perfectly legal?

                                                                                        Tell me, what banking scheme are you referring to?

                                                                                        [–]UnexpectedLizard 28 points29 points  (3 children)

                                                                                        Tell me, what banking scheme are you referring to?

                                                                                        The one he pulled out of his ass.

                                                                                        load more comments (5 replies)

                                                                                          [–]iPimpChaldoGirls 8 points9 points  (0 children)

                                                                                          That’s GAAP NI, not actual cash flows.

                                                                                          load more comments (7 replies)

                                                                                            load more comments (11 replies)

                                                                                              [–]zeqh 199 points200 points  (35 children)

                                                                                              I don't think people really understand this court case. This all came out before the leaked records discussed asbestos being found in the talcum powder. That is, all of the scientific searches failed to find any significant increase in mesothelioma cases from talcum powder use. If this ruling went through as it was, then scientific basis no longer matters for suing people. Court cases would pop up everywhere suing companies for GMOs, and whatever other batshit thing because somebody actually won a court case with no evidence to back them up.

                                                                                              Obviously the leaked files changes things. The talcum powder studied in those scientific studies could have been free from asbestos, while some of the sold product would contain it, and that makes a big difference. But this has all come after the fact and this ruling will be a giant mess.

                                                                                              All of that sad, if the asbestos contamination rate caused increased cancer rates then that fine needs to be vastly increased and expanded to cover all victims.

                                                                                              [–]yearof39 85 points86 points  (16 children)

                                                                                              There was no plausible mechanism of action for external use causing ovarian cancer, the increased risk was withing statistical noise, and the plaintiff was exposed to plenty of asbestos elsewhere. Bad science, bad ruling, IDGAF about megacorporation profits but taking safe products off the market is not good for public health. Just like I couldn't care less about big ag companies, but glyphosate is probably the safest commercial pesticide (herbicides are a subcategory of pesticides in agriculture) out there and GMO foods like Golden Rice have the potential to help huge numbers of people.

                                                                                              [–]joshuads 33 points34 points  (5 children)

                                                                                              I have a similar understanding. This is similar to the glyphosate and breast implant cases where the science does not really back up the result. All of the evidence is pretty tediously tied and I don't think most scientists would say to stop using the product. The people at risk seem to be the miners. But I have not read enough to say any of that with authority.

                                                                                              [–]nowyouseemenowyoudo2 46 points47 points  (4 children)

                                                                                              The important fact is that the apparent asbestos contamination doesn’t change the epidemiological studies that found absolutely zero link between the product and cancer.

                                                                                              So all the leaked emails show is that actually, there was no reason for anyone to be worried because topical applications of talc and tiny amounts of asbestos are clearly and provably not carcinogenic.

                                                                                              Such a travesty of justice and science that this happened at all

                                                                                              There are so many of these cases now where the science doesn’t back it up, but the public just want corporations to bleed because they feel like they deserve it

                                                                                              [–]MrFantasticallyNerdy 16 points17 points  (1 child)

                                                                                              Well, when most of the population is ignorant about statistics, and therefore epidemiology, it's kind of hard to convince a representative of that population, in the form of a jury, to follow the data.

                                                                                              [–]nowyouseemenowyoudo2 6 points7 points  (0 children)

                                                                                              Which is something we’ve always known, so how in gods name do ignorant laypeople end up deciding scientific questions? It’s pure insanity

                                                                                              load more comments (2 replies)

                                                                                                [–]Nukkil 15 points16 points  (4 children)

                                                                                                I'm actually not sure what is the exact lawsuit is anyway. They went to great lengths to reduce the asbestos in the product to the point where it was almost undetectable. Sure it was still in it and can cause cancer. So do food dyes, preservatives, sugars etc.

                                                                                                If they have to state their micro amounts of asbestos (as a result of mining) causes cancer, shouldn't Doritos also put that the red dye is a known carcinogen on their bags too?

                                                                                                [–]yearof39 13 points14 points  (2 children)

                                                                                                This is how you get California Prop 65

                                                                                                [–]BoilerPurdude 5 points6 points  (1 child)

                                                                                                In the state of california everything gives you cancer!

                                                                                                load more comments (1 reply)

                                                                                                  load more comments (7 replies)

                                                                                                    [–]justdonald 114 points115 points  (13 children)

                                                                                                    4.7 billion seems like a bit much for 22 people when there are probably 10000+ people who suffered exactly the same. Shouldn't everyone affected get a similar payout?

                                                                                                    [–]RepresentativeTell 34 points35 points  (8 children)

                                                                                                    It was one lawsuit. There will be many more. Other people can bring suits as they get sick, but you can’t give a 1 size fits all damages when you don’t know when or how many or how sick people will get.

                                                                                                    [–]BillNyeCreampieGuy 28 points29 points  (2 children)

                                                                                                    starts coughing

                                                                                                    I don’t feel so good.

                                                                                                    [–]tuskvarner 10 points11 points  (1 child)

                                                                                                    Pa, I got the white lung

                                                                                                    load more comments (5 replies)

                                                                                                      load more comments (4 replies)

                                                                                                        [–]God_in_my_Bed 36 points37 points  (31 children)

                                                                                                        So, is this stuff safe to use now? Just curious.

                                                                                                        [–]asr 12 points13 points  (1 child)

                                                                                                        Use corn starch based powder instead of talc based.

                                                                                                        I rarely use either, so I'm not sure if they act the same, but corn starch seems fine to me when I need it.

                                                                                                        Plus as a bonus you can use the unscented kind from your kitchen if you don't want a sent.

                                                                                                        [–]Hmiad 8 points9 points  (0 children)

                                                                                                        Dont use cornstarch if you have a fungal infection. Cornstarch sucksif you have anything breeding down there. Honestly they need to just find a way to make lab created talc. Talc is way better than cornstarch. Cancers a downer though.

                                                                                                        load more comments (5 replies)

                                                                                                          [–]thewoodenabacus 11 points12 points  (0 children)

                                                                                                          Talc is a primary ingredient in many cosmetics. What does this mean for the cosmetics industry?

                                                                                                          [–][deleted] 10 points11 points  (1 child)

                                                                                                          They’re trying asbestos they can

                                                                                                          [–]efectobanana 6 points7 points  (0 children)

                                                                                                          They finally found out that J&J grinds babies intos powder and sells them. Monsters

                                                                                                          [–]JoseJimeniz 47 points48 points  (30 children)

                                                                                                          Remember that there is no science to say that J&J Baby Powder causes cancer.

                                                                                                          Science has a very tough set of requirements. And governments, and civil cases, and even criminal cases, don't have to meet such a burden as science requires.

                                                                                                          A government can claim whatever it wants, and it doesn't have to be backed up by science:

                                                                                                          • government can claim that pesticides are causing colony collapse disorder. Science disagrees; but governments aren't scientists, and aren't bound by the dictates of science
                                                                                                          • it's like the Monsanto cancer case: a jury decided that RoundUp causes cancer when there is no science to back it up

                                                                                                          How can a jury decide that Round-up causes cancer when science disagrees?

                                                                                                          Part of the answer lies in the burden of proof.

                                                                                                          "By no means should anybody take that to mean that it's now been demonstrated that those things cause cancer. That's not what a court is designed to do,"

                                                                                                          In civil litigation, jurors are told to weigh the evidence differently than a scientist would. They don't even have to decide "beyond a reasonable doubt" as they would have to do in a criminal case.

                                                                                                          There's a descending order of difficulty:

                                                                                                          • Science (must survive the most rigorous standards of scrutiny)
                                                                                                          • Criminal case (beyond a reasonable doubt)
                                                                                                          • Civil case (More likely than not - a preponderance of the evidence)

                                                                                                          Bonus: Carl Segan, Cosmos Part 4 - Heaven and Hell, standard of science

                                                                                                          In the case of governments, and in civil cases, it is perfectly acceptable when answering the question:

                                                                                                          • Does this pesticide cause cancer?
                                                                                                          • Does this baby powder cause cancer?
                                                                                                          • Is this certain pesticides or GMO killing off bees?

                                                                                                          to answer:

                                                                                                          "I'm not sure, but I think so"

                                                                                                          And i'm not being facetious; that really is what it is.

                                                                                                          • a government can claim whatever it wants, and ban whatever it wants, but it doesn't have to follow science
                                                                                                          • civil lawsuits also don't follow the rules of science
                                                                                                          • science is rigorous, and doesn't care about politics or shifting passions of people

                                                                                                          tl;dr: GMOs don't kill bees, pesticides do not cause CCD. And Johnson&Johnson baby powder does not cause cancer.

                                                                                                          [–]dontthrowme_away 65 points66 points  (19 children)

                                                                                                          There’s so much misinformation related to this case. Someone else posted already, but both J&J and third party groups have never found asbestos in baby powder. The memos also don’t confirm the presence of asbestos; rather, the memos state that they should be cautious and conduct additional tests...which they did do at that time.

                                                                                                          Strongly recommend you check out their site regarding this case. If this case isn’t overturned or appealed in favor of J&J, we’re implying that facts don’t matter any more, which only serves to weaken our justice system.

                                                                                                          http://www.factsabouttalc.com

                                                                                                          [–]slushster 23 points24 points  (0 children)

                                                                                                          This. This is the only reasonable comment here. It looks like J&J never surpassed their quality control threshold (I believe <.003 Wt%) for asbestos.

                                                                                                          The media seems to be eating up and mixing the following two cases: whether talc is a carcinogen and whether JNJ has asbestos in their talc. JNJ and the FDA have hard data that prove without a doubt that both these things are false. People are eating this story up because it’s such a large and reliable company. I think this all this drama is coming down to cherry picking and confused facts.

                                                                                                          People are trying to boycott JNJ talc but they don’t seem to realize how many other products use the same talc that JNJ uses (but with fewer quality control checks). This includes various foods, products like gold bond, and MOST makeup products. All pressed powers use talc and there is no asbestos checks with these products (I work in this industry). Good on J&J for having all these quality and safety checks. You guys are all being exposed to a lot more talc via other means that isn’t being checked. Odds are J&J’s talc is more pure than any other the other talc we come into contact with every day.

                                                                                                          load more comments (18 replies)

                                                                                                            [–]arctichaze888 7 points8 points  (2 children)

                                                                                                            Meanwhile Equifax barely got their wrist slapped. Why isn’t Equifax is a similar predicament?

                                                                                                            [–]I_promise_you_gold 5 points6 points  (1 child)

                                                                                                            When can I get expect my $1.25 check?

                                                                                                            load more comments (331 replies)