Initially a court in the state of Missouri, USA, provided compensation of US $ 550 million, but added US $ 4.1 billion as ‘damages’ punishment.
The decision was reached while the drug giant faced 9,000 legal cases related to its famous baby powder.
J & J stated ‘very disappointed’ and plans to appeal.
In a six-week trial period, women and their families said they had cervical cancer because of using baby powder and other powder powder products for decades.
Of the 22 women in this case, six people have died of uterine cancer.
Their lawyers accused the company of knowing asbestos poisoned powder powder since the 1970s but failed to warn consumers of its risks.
Talc or powder is a mineral sometimes found on soil adjacent to the asbestos.
J & J denies products ever containing asbestos and confirms this does not cause cancer.
The drug giant added that a number of studies show powder safe powders and court decisions are the result of “basically unfair processes”.
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) commissioned a study of a number of different types of powder powder, including J & J, from 2009 to 2010 and found no asbestos.
But prosecutors told the Missouri court that the FDA and Johnson & Johnson were using a flawed test method.
This decision is the largest payment of J & J related to various similar allegations.
The punitive damages are often reduced by the judge as well as on the appeal level, and J & J has successfully reversed a number of judges’ decisions, partly for technical reasons.
In an earlier decision in 2017, a California jury awarded US $ 417 million to a woman who claimed to have uterine cancer for using the company’s products, including baby powder powder.
Nevertheless a judge then changed the verdict and some of the J & J legal cases have not been terminated.
Johnson & Johnson stated: “All the verdicts against Johnson & Johnson in this court that have passed the appeal process have been reversed and the number of mistakes that occurred in this court is worse than the previous courts, which (the verdict) has also been reversed.”