美國時間2025年10月7日，一宗備受矚目的訴訟在洛杉磯縣法院落下帷幕。陪審團裁定，跨國醫藥巨頭強生公司（Johnson & Johnson）須向一名因使用其爽身粉產品罹患癌症而去世的女性家屬支付9.66億美元（約合人民幣68.8億元）的巨額賠償金。這一判決不僅是強生在長達15年滑石粉致癌風波中的最新敗訴，更創下單一原告獲賠金額最高的紀錄，再次將這場持續多年的全球性企業責任爭議推向輿論焦點。

案件的主角是已故的梅·摩爾（May Moore），她是美國加利福尼亞州的居民，於2021年因罕見癌症——間皮瘤（Mesothelioma）去世，享年88歲。間皮瘤是一種主要由長期接觸石棉（Asbestos）所引發的致命癌症，而石棉恰恰被指是強生旗下滑石粉產品中的污染物。梅·摩爾的家屬在她去世後隨即提起訴訟，指控強生公司多年來隱瞞其爽身粉產品中可能含有石棉纖維的事實，導致消費者在毫不知情的情況下長期使用並最終患癌。

根據法庭文件，洛杉磯縣陪審團最終裁定強生公司須支付1600萬美元的補償性賠償金，用以彌補受害人及其家屬的損失，並追加9.5億美元的懲罰性賠償金，以懲戒企業對消費者安全的嚴重忽視。這筆金額總計9.66億美元的判決，成為自2009年相關訴訟開始以來，強生面臨的最高單筆賠償案，其象徵意義遠超金額本身。

強生公司在判決出爐後隨即發表聲明，強烈否認其產品含有石棉，並表示將“立即提出上訴”。該公司聲稱，多年來的科學檢測與醫學研究均支持其滑石粉產品的安全性，且公司一直致力於為消費者提供可靠產品。強生同時指出，美國法律對懲罰性賠償金有嚴格限制，依據最高法院的相關裁定，此類賠償通常不得超過補償性賠償的九倍，因此該金額有可能在上訴程序中被削減。

事實上，這起案件只是強生眾多滑石粉訴訟中的冰山一角。截至目前，該公司仍面臨超過6.7萬起相關訴訟，多數案件指控其產品與卵巢癌或間皮瘤等疾病有關。過去數年間，強生曾多次在法院中敗訴，部分案件以數億美元和解結束，也有判決在上訴後被推翻或減額。儘管如此，這些案件對公司品牌形象與財務狀況造成的損害已無法忽視。

值得注意的是，強生早在2023年便宣布將全面停止全球範圍內的滑石粉產品銷售，改以玉米澱粉基底的新配方取代。然而，該決定被外界普遍認為是為了降低法律風險與公關壓力，而非出於科學證據的考量。

從社會層面來看，這起判決再次引發了美國消費者對企業誠信與公共健康責任的討論。支持者認為，陪審團的裁定是對大型企業的警告，提醒其不得以利潤為代價忽視安全風險；但也有法律專家指出，若上訴法院依照比例原則削減賠償，最終金額可能大幅下降。

無論最終結果如何，這起案件無疑將成為強生滑石粉爭議史上的關鍵轉折點。它不僅再次喚醒社會對消費品安全的警覺，也揭示出跨國企業在公共信任與法律責任之間的長期矛盾。而對強生而言，即使最終上訴成功，想要修復多年來受損的品牌形象與消費者信任，恐怕已非短期內可以做到的事。

On October 7, 2025, a Los Angeles County jury delivered a landmark verdict against pharmaceutical giant Johnson & Johnson (J&J), ordering the company to pay $966 million USD (approximately 6.88 billion RMB) to the family of an elderly woman who died from mesothelioma, a rare cancer linked to asbestos exposure. The jury found that J&J’s talc-based baby powder contained asbestos and was responsible for causing the victim’s illness. This ruling marks one of the largest single-plaintiff awards in the company’s 15-year-long legal battle over its talc products.

The victim, May Moore, was an 88-year-old California resident who passed away in 2021 after being diagnosed with mesothelioma—a deadly cancer that typically develops after long-term exposure to asbestos fibers. According to the lawsuit filed by her family, Moore had used J&J’s baby powder for decades, unaware that it might contain trace amounts of asbestos, a carcinogenic mineral. The plaintiffs accused the company of failing to warn consumers and concealing product safety risks for years in order to maintain profits.

Court documents revealed that the jury awarded $16 million in compensatory damages for the family’s losses and an additional $950 million in punitive damages to punish J&J for its negligence and misconduct. The total of $966 million is the largest compensation ever granted to an individual plaintiff in J&J’s talc-related cases.

In response to the verdict, Johnson & Johnson issued a statement denying that its products contain asbestos and announced plans to immediately appeal the ruling. The company insisted that decades of scientific studies and tests have confirmed the safety of its talc-based products. J&J also cited prior U.S. Supreme Court precedents, noting that punitive damages typically cannot exceed nine times the compensatory damages, suggesting the total amount could be reduced upon appeal.

This lawsuit is only one of more than 67,000 cases still pending against Johnson & Johnson in the United States, most of which allege that the company’s talc powders caused ovarian cancer or mesothelioma. Over the past decade, J&J has faced numerous multimillion-dollar verdicts and settlements, though several rulings have been overturned or reduced on appeal. The ongoing litigation has already inflicted severe reputational and financial damage on the century-old corporation.

In 2023, Johnson & Johnson officially discontinued the sale of talc-based baby powder worldwide, switching to a cornstarch-based formula instead. While the company claimed this decision was made “out of an abundance of caution,” critics argued that it was a strategic move to minimize legal risk rather than an admission of product danger.

The verdict has reignited public debate across the U.S. about corporate accountability and consumer safety. Supporters of the ruling hailed it as a wake-up call for multinational corporations that prioritize profit over health, while some legal analysts noted that the final compensation amount could still be reduced on appeal.

Regardless of the outcome, this case represents a turning point in the long-running controversy over J&J’s talc products. It underscores the growing tension between corporate interests and public health, as well as the enduring challenge of rebuilding consumer trust after years of litigation and public scrutiny. Even if Johnson & Johnson succeeds in reducing the damages, restoring its reputation may take far longer than winning an appeal.