Created by: Shivam midha
Companies pay large sums when their products cause harm. Lawsuits force them to compensate people who suffer from defective or dangerous products.
Some payouts in 2025 reached billions, covering cases of cancer, hearing loss, water contamination, and opioid addiction.
Courts rejected attempts by companies to escape responsibility through bankruptcy. Many cases involved years of legal battles before settlements or jury verdicts.
The lawsuits show how companies can be held accountable when their products cause serious harm.
Johnson & Johnson faced lawsuits over its talc-based baby powder, which plaintiffs linked to ovarian cancer and mesothelioma.
Courts ruled that the company failed to warn consumers about possible asbestos contamination in its product. Thousands of lawsuits resulted in massive payouts, and legal battles continued in 2025.
Women who used Johnson’s Baby Powder for personal hygiene filed lawsuits claiming the talc contained asbestos, which caused cancer.
The lawsuits revealed internal company documents suggesting Johnson & Johnson knew of contamination risks for decades. The company denied the claims and argued its product was safe.
Johnson & Johnson proposed an $8.9 billion settlement to resolve tens of thousands of cases. The company attempted to use bankruptcy through its subsidiary, LTL Management, to limit liability, but courts rejected this move.
The payout was meant to be spread over 25 years to compensate cancer victims. Courts blocked the bankruptcy strategy, allowing individual lawsuits to move forward.
Judges ruled that Johnson & Johnson could not avoid liability through bankruptcy because it was not in financial distress. The U.S. Supreme Court refused to overturn a $2.1 billion Missouri verdict against the company.
These rulings forced Johnson & Johnson to fight cases individually, leading to more jury awards and settlements.
Johnson & Johnson announced it would stop selling talc-based baby powder worldwide. The legal battles set a precedent against corporate attempts to avoid mass tort liability through bankruptcy.
The lawsuits also pushed companies to improve transparency about product safety.
3M faced lawsuits from U.S. military veterans who claimed its Combat Arms Earplugs, Version 2 (CAEv2) were defective. The earplugs, used in combat and training, failed to protect against loud noises, leading to hearing loss and tinnitus. Courts ruled that 3M knew about design flaws but failed to warn users.
The U.S. military used 3M’s dual-ended earplugs between 2003 and 2015, believing they would reduce noise exposure. Veterans later reported that the earplugs loosened and failed to block dangerous sound levels. Lawsuits revealed that 3M and its subsidiary, Aearo Technologies, falsified test results and misrepresented the product’s effectiveness.
3M agreed to a $6.01 billion settlement in August 2023 to resolve nearly 260,000 lawsuits. The settlement included $5 billion in cash and $1 billion in stock, to be paid between 2023 and 2029. The agreement required 98% of claimants to opt in, which reports indicated was met.
3M attempted to limit liability by pushing its subsidiary, Aearo Technologies, into bankruptcy. A federal judge dismissed this move, ruling that Aearo was not in financial distress. The decision forced 3M to negotiate a direct settlement.
Bellwether trials before the settlement resulted in 13 plaintiff victories, with total jury awards reaching $265 million. These verdicts pressured 3M to settle, as more trials could have led to larger payouts.
The case highlighted corporate responsibility in military contracts. The lawsuits led to better oversight of protective equipment used by service members. The ruling against 3M’s bankruptcy strategy also set limits on how companies can use bankruptcy courts to escape liability.
Bayer, which acquired Monsanto in 2018, faced lawsuits over Roundup, a widely used herbicide. Plaintiffs claimed that glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, caused non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.
Courts ruled that Monsanto failed to warn consumers about the potential health risks. Bayer denied the claims and argued that regulatory agencies found Roundup to be safe.
Lawsuits were filed by farmers, landscapers, and consumers who used Roundup for years and later developed cancer. Internal Monsanto documents showed efforts to discredit scientific research that linked glyphosate to cancer.
The World Health Organization’s cancer research arm classified glyphosate as probably carcinogenic, while the Environmental Protection Agency stated it was unlikely to cause cancer.
Bayer announced a settlement of up to ten point nine billion dollars in 2020 to resolve about one hundred thousand existing lawsuits.
However, thousands of additional cases remained, leading to more jury trials. In November 2023, a Missouri jury awarded one point five six billion dollars, later reduced to 611 million dollars.
In January 2024, a Philadelphia jury issued a record two point two five billion dollar verdict, later reduced to about four hundred million dollars. By early 2025, Bayer had set aside around six billion dollars to cover future Roundup liabilities.
The Supreme Court refused to hear Bayer’s appeal of a twenty five million dollar verdict, rejecting the company’s argument that federal pesticide approval shielded it from liability.
Courts also rejected Bayer’s attempt to create a class settlement to handle future claims, ruling that it would limit compensation for future cancer victims.
Bayer won a majority of recent trials but continued to face large verdicts. Some appellate courts ruled in Bayer’s favor, accepting arguments that federal law preempts state failure-to-warn claims. Other courts ruled against the company, leaving the legal landscape uncertain.
The lawsuits pressured Bayer to phase out glyphosate in residential Roundup products. The case raised awareness about potential health risks from widely used chemicals and led to stronger labeling and safety measures.
The continued litigation showed how companies must weigh long-term liability risks when defending controversial products.
Pharmaceutical companies, distributors, and pharmacy chains faced lawsuits over their role in the opioid crisis.
Governments and victims claimed these companies knowingly contributed to opioid addiction by aggressively marketing painkillers and failing to monitor suspicious orders.
The lawsuits resulted in settlements totaling over fifty billion dollars, making this one of the largest liability payouts in history.
States, counties, and cities sued opioid manufacturers such as Purdue Pharma, Johnson and Johnson, Teva, and Endo, along with major distributors like McKesson, AmerisourceBergen, and Cardinal Health.
Pharmacy chains including CVS, Walgreens, and Walmart also faced lawsuits. The plaintiffs argued that these companies downplayed the risks of addiction while flooding communities with prescription opioids, leading to widespread abuse and overdose deaths.
A nationwide settlement reached in 2022 included twenty six billion dollars from Johnson and Johnson and the three largest drug distributors.
Pharmacy chains later agreed to pay thirteen point eight billion dollars to resolve lawsuits over their role in opioid dispensing. Other settlements included four point two five billion dollars from Teva Pharmaceuticals and two billion dollars from Allergan.
Purdue Pharma proposed a bankruptcy plan that would provide up to six billion dollars in compensation, but legal challenges delayed final approval.
Most companies chose to settle rather than face jury trials. Some bellwether trials, including one in Oklahoma, found Johnson and Johnson liable under public nuisance laws, though the Oklahoma Supreme Court later overturned that ruling.
Other trials resulted in large verdicts against pharmacy chains, though some judgments were reduced or overturned on appeal. Purdue Pharma’s bankruptcy case reached the Supreme Court, where justices questioned whether the Sackler family, Purdue’s owners, could be shielded from personal liability.
The settlements required companies to fund opioid treatment, prevention programs, and addiction recovery efforts. Governments also imposed stricter monitoring of opioid distribution. The lawsuits demonstrated how corporate decisions on drug marketing and distribution can have lasting public health consequences.
Chemical manufacturers faced lawsuits over PFAS, known as forever chemicals, which contaminated drinking water.
PFAS were used in firefighting foams, nonstick coatings, and industrial products. Lawsuits claimed these chemicals caused cancer, immune system damage, and other health issues.
Public water systems and individuals sued companies including 3M, DuPont, and Chemours for polluting groundwater with PFAS. The lawsuits revealed that companies knew about the chemicals' persistence and health risks for decades but continued production without adequate warnings.
The Environmental Protection Agency moved to set strict drinking water limits for PFAS, strengthening legal claims against manufacturers.
In June 2023, 3M agreed to pay 1.3 billion dollars to settle lawsuits from U.S. public water systems. The payout, set over thirteen years, funds testing and filtration of PFAS in drinking water.
In a separate settlement, DuPont, Chemours, and Corteva agreed to pay one point one nine billion dollars to resolve similar claims. The settlements aimed to cover water providers' costs of PFAS cleanup, but individual exposure cases continued.
The lawsuits were consolidated into a federal multidistrict litigation in South Carolina. A bellwether trial involving a water utility’s claim against 3M was set for June 2023 but was avoided after 3M settled.
Some states initially objected to the deal, fearing it might limit their claims, but later withdrew objections. Courts approved preliminary settlement terms, with final approval expected in 2024.
The settlements forced companies to address long-term environmental damage caused by their products.
3M agreed to stop producing PFAS by the end of 2025. The lawsuits led to stronger regulations on PFAS use and increased corporate accountability for industrial pollution.
The case also showed how environmental mass torts can result in large payouts, similar to traditional product liability claims.
Some states argued the settlement might limit their ability to sue 3M for additional damages. They later withdrew objections after further negotiations.
Governments, not individuals, were the main plaintiffs, suing under public nuisance laws rather than traditional product defect claims.
Juries awarded both compensatory and punitive damages, punishing Bayer for allegedly hiding health risks linked to glyphosate.
Bellwether trials resulted in costly verdicts, and courts blocked its bankruptcy strategy, forcing 3M to settle to avoid further losses.
The Supreme Court paused the plan due to concerns over shielding the Sackler family from future lawsuits while using bankruptcy to settle claims.
Major product liability cases in 2025 led to billions in payouts, setting legal precedents and enforcing corporate accountability. Courts rejected bankruptcy loopholes, forcing direct settlements.
Lawsuits against Johnson and Johnson, 3M, Bayer, opioid manufacturers, and PFAS producers reshaped industry practices, strengthened consumer protections, and led to stricter regulations. Companies now face greater financial and legal risks when failing to address product safety concerns.