369
submitted 1 year ago by reclipse@lemdro.id to c/world@lemmy.world
top 22 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] jimmyjoners@lemmy.world 71 points 1 year ago

This isn't even punitive, but just the cost of doing business. Protip, if the fine wouldn't stop you from making the same business decision again, it's not really a fine.

[-] rynzcycle@kbin.social 25 points 1 year ago

Let's hope that all of these:

a setback for the company as it seeks to settle thousands of similar cases

come to similar results then.

[-] anlumo@feddit.de 3 points 1 year ago

If they have 10,000 lawsuits that result in the same fine, it might actually have an impact on their bottom line.

[-] reddig33@lemmy.world 18 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

“Hernandez testified in June, telling jurors that he would have avoided J&J’s talc if he had been warned that it contained asbestos, as his lawsuit alleges.”

Got news for you — if there’s any asbestos in the talc, it likely wasn’t added by J&J. Asbestos occurs frequently where talc is mined. If J&J talcum powder has asbestos, chances are other brands of talc do too.

The only way to avoid it is to switch from talc to corn starch based products.

https://www.fda.gov/cosmetics/cosmetic-ingredients/talc

https://www.asbestos.com/news/2022/01/18/fda-testing-asbestos-talc/

[-] R05@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago

I feel this gets overlooked too easily. Also, there was a recent article reporting that the study that proofed talc was responsible for the asbestos exposure, was fundamentally flawed and ignored major historic exposure to asbestos in its participants.

Shit on J&J all you want, they deserve a fair bit of criticism, but the talc ruling is just plain ignorance by the jury.

[-] DopamineDaydreams@kbin.social 8 points 1 year ago

So uh, should I throw this away...

[-] ultratiem@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Or just don’t maybe submerse your kid in it every hour of every day

[-] twistedtxb@lemmy.ca 8 points 1 year ago

The jury found that Hernandez was entitled to damages to compensate him for his medical bills and pain and suffering, but declined to award punitive damages against the company. Hernandez will not be able to collect the judgment in the foreseeable future, thanks to a bankruptcy court order freezing most litigation over J&J’s talc.

How the hell is J&J unsolvable?

[-] MasterObee@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

Wasn't there a huge civil suit against J&J that they avoided paying?

Just another big pharma company that is getting charged fines, but that's just their cost of doing business. These suits against J&J, Pfizer & more should put the company permanently out of business.

[-] Bluefalcon@discuss.tchncs.de 5 points 1 year ago

Everyone complaining about that little cancer problem but no one is thanking J&J for making them fire resistant.

[-] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

QA on powders is a legit hard thing to do. I remember when this story first broke thinking that it probably was just a real sad accident. Of course time showed differently.

What percentage of that is actually going to the patient after all the costs of the case are subtracted?

[-] Nioxic@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Will it cover the cancer treatment?

[-] 6mementomori@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

that's spare change... that's not a fine, that's just a small price to pay.

[-] danhasnolife@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

Hilariously, this fine is probably not even large enough for them to spin off a shell company and declare bankruptcy on the debts. They'll just shrug and move on. Toothless.

this post was submitted on 19 Jul 2023
369 points (99.7% liked)

World News

38563 readers
2561 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS