IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FAULKNER COUNTY, ARKANSAS
______ DIVISION
STATE OF ARKANSAS, ex rel.
TIM GRIFFIN, ATTORNEY GENERAL PLAINTIFF
v. CASE NO. 23CV-24-_____
JOHNSON & JOHNSON DEFENDANT
COMPLAINT
Plaintiff, the State of Arkansas, ex rel. Tim Griffin, Attorney General brings this action and
alleges that Defendant Johnson & Johnson (hereinafter referred to as “J&J”) violated the Arkansas
Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Ark. Code Ann. § 4-88-101 et. seq. as follows:
I. JURISDICTION AND STATUTORY AUTHORITY
1. This enforcement action is brought by Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin, in
the name of the State of Arkansas and in the public interest, pursuant to the authority granted by
Ark. Code Ann. § 4-88-113, upon the ground that J&J has engaged in unfair or deceptive acts and
practices in or affecting commerce as declared unlawful by Ark. Code Ann. § 4-88-107(a).
2. This Court has jurisdiction over J&J because it has transacted business within the
State of Arkansas at all times relevant to this Complaint within the applicable statute of limitations.
Ark. Code Ann. §§ 4-88-104; 4-88-112; 16-4-101.
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
Faulkner County Circuit Court
Nancy Eastham, Circuit Clerk
2024-Jun-11 11:32:04
23CV-24-1063
C20D01 : 9 Pages
Page 2 of 9
3. Plaintiff has reason to believe that J&J has caused and will cause immediate,
irreparable injury, loss, and damage to the State of Arkansas. Therefore, these proceedings are in
the public interest.
II. VENUE
4. Venue is proper pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. §§ 4-88-104, 4-88-112, and the
common law of the State of Arkansas.
III. PARTIES
5. Plaintiff is the State of Arkansas (“State”), by Tim Griffin, Attorney General of the
State of Arkansas.
6. Defendant Johnson & Johnson is a New Jersey company, and its principal place of
business and executive offices are located at One Johnson & Johnson Plaza, New Brunswick, NJ,
08933. J&J transacts business in Arkansas and nationwide by manufacturing, marketing,
promoting, advertising, offering for sale, and selling, Johnson’s® Baby Powder® and Shower to
Shower®.
7. J&J is a “person” who has engaged in unconscionable, false, or deceptive acts or
practices in business, commerce, or trade. Ark. Code Ann. § 4-88-102(6).
IV. ACTS OF AGENTS
8. Whenever this Complaint alleges that J&J did any act, it means that:
a. J&J performed or participated in the act; or
b. J&J’s subsidiaries, officers, successors in interest, agents, partners, trustees,
or employees performed or participated in the act on behalf of and under the authority of J&J.
Page 3 of 9
V. TRADE AND COMMERCE
9. J&J and its agents have, at all times described below, engaged in trade or commerce
in the State of Arkansas as defined in the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Ark. Code Ann.
§ 4-88-101 et. seq.
VI. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
10. Since the 1890s, J&J and various subsidiaries have manufactured, marketed, and
sold talc body powder products such as Johnson’s® Baby Powder and Shower to Shower®
(collectively, “Talc Powder Products” or “Talc Products”). J&J marketed these products as safe
for daily use by consumers all over their bodies, including female genitalia. The products were
marketed and intended to be used to maintain a fresh, dry, and clean feeling; to eliminate friction
on the skin; and to absorb excess moisture. J&J’s talc powder products were advertised as
“clinically proven gentle and mild.”
11. In advertisements, J&J at times encouraged primarily women and teenage girls to
use Talc Powder Products to mask and avoid odors. Bottles of Johnson’s® Baby Powder
specifically stated, “for use every day to help feel soft, fresh and comfortable.” Shower to
Shower’s® advertisements stated, “Your body perspires in more places than just under your arms.
Use SHOWER to SHOWER to feel dry, fresh and comfortable throughout the day.” In short, J&J
knew and intended that women would use the Talc Powder Products on and in their genitalia.
12. Since the 1980s, J&J knew of studies and other support information demonstrating
that Talc Powder Products were sometimes tainted with carcinogenic asbestos and that women
who used talc-based powders in the genital area had an increased risk of ovarian cancer compared
to those women who did not. At all pertinent times during these periods, feasible and safe
alternatives to the Talc Products existed (e.g., cornstarch powders). Despite this knowledge, J&J
Page 4 of 9
continued marketing of Talc Powder Products as safe, pure, and gentle, and as suitable for use in
and on female genitals.
13. J&J’s knowledge of the potential presences of asbestos in its Talc Powder Products
dates to at least the 1950s, when J&J discovered that the chief source mine for talc in the U.S.
market contained tremolite. Tremolite is one of the six different minerals that take the form of
crystalline fibers known as asbestos. Through the 1960s, J&J searched for “clean” talc deposits
but kept finding tremolite fibers in the deposits. As early as 1969, J&J expressed internal concern
in a memo that the tremolite fibers in its talc posed a safety risk, and that J&J would not be able to
ensure that its powders were safe to use if tremolite in more than “unavoidable trace amounts”
were present.
14. In the 1970s, there was growing public awareness of the dangers of asbestos with
the federal Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) recognition of asbestos as the primary cause
of mesothelioma. During this time, J&J repeatedly met with the FDA and shared “evidence that
their talc contains less than 1%, if any, asbestos.”
15. Meanwhile, J&J’s own scientists were conducting studies showing that J&J’s talc
contained trace amounts of asbestos fibers. J&J’s research director warned that J&J should “protect
our powder franchise” by eliminating as many tiny fibers that can be inhaled in airborne talc dust
as possible, but that “no final product will ever be made which will be totally free from respirable
particles.”
16. Moreover, a 1973 J&J memo made clear that the company was “confident” that
asbestiform minerals could be located even at a mine the company considered “very clean,” and
that talc used in J&J’s baby powder at times contained identifiable amounts of tremolite and
actinolite, two types of asbestos fibers.
Page 5 of 9
17. J&J knew, from the results of funded studies, that asbestos was present in talc.
However, citing costs and fear of public reaction, they failed to disclose this knowledge to the
government, media, or the public. Instead, the lobbying organization Cosmetic Toiletry and
Fragrance Association (hereinafter “CTFA”), which J&J was a part of, stated, “there is no basis…
[for a] request that cosmetic talc products should bear warning labels to the effect that talcum
powder causes cancer in laboratory animals or the ‘frequent talc application in the female genital
area increases the risk of ovarian cancer.’”
18. J&J also engaged in an effort to influence research on talc safety. J&J
commissioned a 1974 mortality study of Italian talc miners, which found no mesothelioma among
the subject population. The study was then repeatedly published along with other J&J-
commissioned studies, including one testing baby powder on a doll to show that powdering
provided low exposure, touting the safety of talc without disclosing J&J’s connections. J&J
reported on the success of its efforts to influence research on talc safety in a 1977 internal report
on J&J’s “Defense of Talc Safety” strategy, noting that independent authorities had been
“enjoy[ing] confirming reassurance” that cosmetic talc products were “free of hazard,” in part due
to the effective dissemination of “favorable data from the various J&J sponsored studies” to the
scientific and medical communities in the United States and Britain.
19. Meanwhile, a 1982 Harvard study found that the use of talc increased a women’s
risk of ovarian cancer by 92%. The authors of that study advised J&J to place a warning on its
Talc Products. J&J did not.
20. Since 1982, multiple studies found an increased risk of ovarian cancer caused by
the use of talc products for feminine hygiene.
Page 6 of 9
21. J&J attempted to neutralize the effects of the studies. For instance, the United States
National Toxicology Program published a study in 1993 on the toxicity of non-asbestiform talc
that found clear evidence of carcinogenic activity. In response, CTFA’s Talc Interested Party Task
Force, a group of which J&J was a member, issued statements claiming these studies were
insufficient to link between hygienic talc use and ovarian cancer.
22. Despite knowledge of the dangers associated with the use of its Talc Powder
Products, J&J failed to warn consumers and continued to market Talc Powder Products for use in
the manner most likely to increase the risk of ovarian cancer.
23. In the 1990s, J&J specifically targeted African American and Hispanic women in
its marketing campaigns in order to reverse declines in sales of its baby powders. J&J’s internal
memo describing this marketing strategy acknowledged that baby powder had problems such as
“negative publicity from the health community on talc (inhalation, dust, negative doctor
endorsement, cancer linkage).”
24. By the 2000s, other manufacturers began placing warnings on their talc products
about the risk of developing ovarian cancer as a result of genital talc use. The safety documents
provided to J&J by its current talc supplier included a statement that the International Agency for
Research on Cancer “has concluded that perineal use of talc-based body powder is possibly
carcinogenic to humans.” Despite knowing for over 30 years of studies linking the use of Talc
Products in the genital area with increased risk of ovarian cancer, J&J continued to refuse to
include any warning or information in its marketing of the Talc Products. Instead, J&J continued
to market the products as safe for daily use on all areas of the body. For example, contemporaneous
Shower to Shower® advertisements suggested that “a sprinkle a day keeps odors away” that the
product “can be used all over your body.”
Page 7 of 9
25. In 2012, J&J sold Shower to Shower to Valeant Pharmaceuticals North America,
LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Valeant International. In July 2018, Valent International
changed its name to Bausch Health Companies, Inc (“Bausch”). In 2018, Bausch reformulated
Shower to Shower by replacing talc with corn starch.
26. In October 2019, J&J issued a recall of Johnson’s Baby Powder after the FDA
discovered asbestos in a bottle. J&J finally discontinued the manufacturing, sale, and distribution
of talc-based Johnson’s Baby Powder in May 2020 in the United States.
VII. VIOLATION OF THE ARKANSAS DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES ACT
ARK. CODE ANN. § 4-88-101 ET. SEQ.
27. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference herein each and every allegation
contained in the preceding paragraphs.
28. J&J, in the course of marketing, promoting, selling, and distributing its Talc Powder
Products, has engaged in a course of trade or commerce that constitutes false, deceptive, or
misleading acts or practices, and is therefore unlawful under the Arkansas Deceptive Trade
Practices Act. J&J knowingly made false representations as to the characteristics, ingredients, uses,
benefits, alterations, source, sponsorship, approval, or certification of its goods or as to whether its
goods were of a particular standard, quality, grade, style, or model. Ark. Code Ann. § 4-88-107(a).
29. J&J, in the course of marketing, promoting, selling, and distributing its Talc Powder
Products, has engaged in a course of trade or commerce that constitutes false, deceptive, or
misleading acts or practices, and that is therefore unlawful under the Arkansas Deceptive Trade
Practices Act, including but not limited to misrepresenting the safety of Talc Powder Products.
Ark. Code Ann. § 4-88-107(a).
Page 8 of 9
30. J&J, in the course of marketing, promoting, selling, and distributing its Talc Powder
Products, has engaged in other unconscionable, false, or deceptive acts or practices in business,
commerce, or trade. Ark. Code Ann. § 4-88-107(10).
VIII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
31. WHEREFORE, the State of Arkansas, ex rel. Tim Griffin, Attorney General
respectfully requests that:
a. Pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. §§ 4-88-104, 4-88-113(a), 4-88-113(d)(1), the
Court permanently enjoin and restrain J&J, their agents, employees, and all other persons and
entities, corporate or otherwise, in active concert or participation with any of them, from engaging
in false, misleading, or deceptive practices in the marketing, promotion, selling, and distributing
of their Talc Powder Products;
b. Pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 4-88-113(a)(3), J&J be ordered to pay civil
penalties in the amount of $10,000.00 for each violation of the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices
Act, Ark. Code Ann. § 4-88-101 et. seq.
c. Pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 4-88-113(e), J&J be ordered to pay costs and
reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred by the State of Arkansas in connection with the investigation
and litigation of this matter; and
32. Plaintiff further requests that this Court grant all other relief to which the Plaintiff
is entitled.
33. The State demands a trial by jury.
Page 9 of 9
Respectfully submitted,
TIM GRIFFIN
Attorney General
By: _______________________________
Matthew M. Ford, ABN 2013180
Assistant Attorney General
Office of Attorney General Tim Griffin
323 Center Street, Suite 200
Little Rock, AR 72201
Phone: (501) 320-3069
Fax: (501) 682-8114
