Talc Litigation Update

Against that backdrop, the federal MDL remains the structural center of the talc litigation. More than 67,000 cases are consolidated for coordinated discovery and pretrial practice, and the docket has been active on both procedural and substantive fronts. Judges overseeing the MDL have grappled with a new wave of Daubert challenges and expert admissibility motions, recognizing that which experts are allowed to testify will shape not just individual bellwether trials but overall negotiation posture. Plaintiffs’ counsel have even sought to bring back experienced jurists as special masters to assist with scientific evidence review, a recognition that resolving disputes over expert testimony is fundamental to the next phase of the litigation.

Another notable MDL development has been the narrowing of claims: both sides recently agreed to dismiss more than 1,100 lawsuits alleging gynecologic cancers other than ovarian cancer, focusing the federal docket on the core injury pattern that most plaintiffs pursue. This pruning of peripheral claims sharpens the scientific and legal issues that will be tested in the first federal bellwether trials.

Indeed, structured negotiations are no longer theoretical. The court appointed a mediator and task-organized lead counsel from both sides to facilitate settlement talks, effectively acknowledging that after years of litigation inertia and repeated bankruptcy proposals by J&J that were rejected by federal judges, there may be enough verdict experience to support meaningful compromise.

Litigation experts watching these developments note a consistent theme: multiple jurisdictions serving as pressure points, sustained verdict pressure influencing risk assumptions, and procedural developments in the MDL setting the pace for settlement infrastructure. Some commentators view the recent stream of high-stakes verdicts as a turning point in leverage, especially in mesothelioma cases where the awards have climbed into the nine-figure range. Others caution that persistent appeals and defense procedural initiatives will keep both state and federal dockets active throughout 2026.

If the year unfolds as the current pattern suggests, talc litigation will be defined by the interplay between verdict experience, careful management of expert evidence, and evolving settlement talks in the federal MDL. Judges in key jurisdictions are shaping how the litigation progresses; juries are continuing to signal their views through verdicts; and practitioners on all sides are adjusting strategy accordingly. Welcome to 2026. It’s shaping up to be a big year in talc litigation – navigating it effectively is going to require both clarity about the evolving landscape and a partner who understands how to move cases forward with precision.