A fresh wave of legal action is crashing over Johnson & Johnson, the American multinational long known for its wholesome image and baby-soft marketing. Thousands of women in the United Kingdom are now suing the pharmaceutical and consumer-goods giant, claiming its talc-based baby powder contained asbestos and that the company knew it.
The new lawsuit, reported by the BBC this week, could be one of the largest product-liability cases in UK history. Johnson & Johnson (J&J) denies the allegations, insisting that decades of scientific testing prove its talc products are safe. But the sheer scale of the claims, coupled with prior settlements in the United States, has reignited global scrutiny of the company’s legacy — including here in South Africa, where the J&J name is as familiar as a bathroom shelf.
A Global Reckoning
This isn’t the first time J&J has been accused of concealing the risks of its products. Investigations by Reuters and others previously unearthed internal company documents suggesting that traces of asbestos, a known carcinogen, had been detected in talc samples as far back as the 1970s.
In the United States, the company has already agreed to multi-billion-dollar settlements to resolve tens of thousands of lawsuits. J&J maintains its products are asbestos-free and safe, but it has since announced plans to phase out talc-based baby powder globally, switching to a cornstarch formula instead.
The question now is whether the ripple effects of this legal storm could reach South African shores.
A Deep-Rooted Brand
Johnson & Johnson has been part of South African life for generations. From baby oil and plasters to surgical sutures and vaccines, its products are stitched into both households and hospitals.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, the J&J vaccine became a key component of South Africa’s rollout, distributed through public-private partnerships and hailed as a triumph of scientific cooperation.
The company also has a significant footprint in pharmaceuticals, medical devices, and consumer health, making it one of the most visible multinationals operating in the country.
But familiarity doesn’t equal immunity. In 2023, J&J found itself on the radar of South Africa’s Competition Commission, which launched an investigation into alleged excessive pricing of its tuberculosis drug bedaquiline. Activists accused the company of “profiting from poverty” by charging high prices for a medicine developed with public-sector funding. The investigation underscored growing impatience with the global pharmaceutical industry’s conduct in Africa.
Could Legal Action Follow Here
Lawyers watching the J&J saga abroad say the conditions exist for a similar reckoning in South Africa.
“If the UK courts find that internal documents reveal a pattern of deception, there’s every chance that evidence could be used to mount local claims,” says one Johannesburg-based consumer-law specialist, speaking on background.
The legal pathway wouldn’t be simple. South Africa’s Prescription Act limits claims to a certain number of years after harm occurred or was discovered. Still, if new evidence shows a cover-up or delayed disclosure, those timelines could be contested.
Public awareness is another factor. South African consumers are increasingly litigious, empowered by online communities and local law firms that specialise in group actions. Class-action suits, once rare, are becoming a viable tool for accountability, particularly when tied to international precedents.
Regulators May Also Step In
Beyond the courts, J&J could face questions from regulators. The South African Health Products Regulatory Authority (SAHPRA) has the power to review consumer-health products for safety and compliance, especially if prompted by international recalls or new data.
While no South African authority has yet announced an investigation into J&J’s talc-based products, such moves often follow developments abroad. The Competition Commission’s proactive stance on drug pricing also hints at a regulatory environment more willing to challenge powerful multinationals than in decades past.
J&J’s Defence: “Safe for Use”
Johnson & Johnson maintains it has never sold asbestos-contaminated talc in any market. Its official position remains unchanged: that all of its cosmetic talc products are safe, tested, and compliant with local and international standards.
The company has long argued that plaintiff lawyers are using “junk science” to link its talc to cancer. Yet its decision to replace talc with cornstarch globally, while framed as a “commercial decision,” has been widely read as a defensive move, an effort to contain reputational fallout.
Why South Africa Matters
South Africa may be small in J&J’s global balance sheet, but it represents something far larger: legitimacy. The company has operated here for more than 80 years, a symbol of stability and reliability across generations.
If lawsuits or investigations were to emerge locally, the reputational damage could be profound, not just for J&J, but for how South Africans perceive multinational accountability more broadly.
It could also set precedent for other global firms operating in Africa, where regulatory gaps have long shielded corporate giants from the kind of scrutiny they face in Europe or the U.S.
A Test of Transparency
For now, South African shelves are still stocked with Johnson’s baby powder, though the shift to cornstarch versions is under way globally. The talc debate may still feel distant, but in a globalised era of instant legal precedent and digital activism, distance is an illusion.
If the UK or U.S. courts expose fresh evidence of negligence, South African lawyers and consumer groups won’t need much encouragement to act.