Why Judges Are Allowing More Jury Trials Instead Of Forcing Talc Settlements In 2025

A growing number of courts are choosing jury trials over forced settlements as unresolved safety questions keep talcum powder cancer claims in public view

Tuesday, January 6, 2026 - In 2025, judges across the country are showing a clear shift in how talc-related cancer cases move forward. Instead of steering claims into broad settlements, more courts are allowing juries to hear the evidence. This change reflects frustration with unresolved questions about product safety, warnings, and consumer trust. Many cases hinge on whether a clear talcum powder ovarian cancer warning should have existed decades ago and whether consumers were exposed to an avoidable talcum powder cancer risk without their knowledge. Judges are increasingly saying that these questions are not procedural issues to be negotiated quietly, but factual disputes that deserve public examination. Jury trials allow everyday citizens to weigh testimony about marketing, product testing, and long-term health effects. Courts appear more willing to let these cases unfold fully rather than pushing them into settlements that may resolve claims quickly but leave important questions unanswered.

According to the United States Food and Drug Administration, talc can be contaminated with asbestos because the two minerals often occur near each other in the earth, making rigorous testing essential. This official position has played a major role in judges' decisions to allow more jury trials. When a federal agency acknowledges that contamination is possible, courts see a legitimate scientific dispute rather than a settled issue. Judges are also recognizing that many plaintiffs were diagnosed years after their exposure, making blanket settlement formulas feel inadequate. Each case carries unique details, including length of use, medical history, and when symptoms first appeared. Jury trials allow these differences to be examined carefully. Courts have noted that forced settlements can limit transparency by sealing evidence and reducing public scrutiny. By contrast, jury trials create a public record, allowing regulators, doctors, and consumers to see how risks were evaluated over time. Judges appear to believe that the courtroom is the right place to test whether warnings were sufficient and whether consumers were given the information they needed to protect themselves.

Another reason judges are favoring jury trials is the growing concern about fairness and accountability. Settlements often involve large groups of claims resolved at once, which can leave some plaintiffs feeling their individual stories were never truly heard. In 2025, courts are more sensitive to the emotional and medical realities of ovarian cancer cases. Judges are acknowledging that these claims involve life-altering diagnoses, not abstract financial disputes. Allowing juries to decide encourages accountability because verdicts are based on evidence presented openly rather than negotiations behind closed doors. It also pressures manufacturers and insurers to confront uncomfortable questions in public. Courts are signaling that efficiency alone is no longer the top priority. Instead, they are emphasizing transparency, public trust, and the right of plaintiffs to have their day in court. This shift does not mean settlements will disappear, but it does mean they are less likely to be imposed prematurely. As more jury trials proceed, the legal landscape around talc-related cancer claims is becoming clearer, louder, and harder to ignore. Judges appear to be saying that when health risks, missing warnings, and long-term exposure are involved, the justice system works best when citizens, not closed-door negotiations, decide the outcome.