Abstract

This case discusses about several controversies faced by American multinational pharmaceutical, medical devices, and consumer packaged goods manufacturer Johnson & Johnson (J&J). The company had been facing issues since 2014 when Chicago-based law firm, Moll Law Group filed its first lawsuit on behalf of its client, Barbara Ross (Ross), a woman in Chicago who had been diagnosed with ovarian cancer. Ross believed that her cancer was due to her daily use of J&J’s Baby Powder and Shower to Shower. The law firm filed a complaint in the US District Court for the Northern district of Illinois alleging that J&J had already known or should have known about the potential risks associated with the use of its products and against its negligent practices in failing to warn the consumers. The plaintiff also stated that J&J engaged in fraudulent and deceptive marketing though it was aware of the scientific evidence that talcum powder might increase the risk of developing ovarian cancer. The plaintiff sought a jury trial and punitive and compensatory damages from J&J. Following several other lawsuits in 2015 and in 2016, the St. Louis court jury stated that J&J was liable for negligence, conspiracy, and failure to issue a warning to women about the potential risks associated with genital talc use. In two instances, the company paid US$ 72 million to the family of a woman who died of ovarian cancer and US$ 55 million to a woman from South Dakota whose lawyers claimed that she had developed ovarian cancer, attributable to her daily use of J&J’s talc-based products. Though J&J was accused of negligent and fraudulent practices, Alex Gorsky, CEO of J&J, expressing disappointment over the recent verdicts on its talcum powder, stated that they were inconsistent with established research, which suggested that the company’s trademark Baby Powder was safe. To tackle the crisis, J&J on its website, it posted a factsheet about its Baby Powder in a bid to reassure customers that its products were safe though the company was facing over 1200 talcum-powder lawsuits accusing it of not adequately warning consumers about the cancer risks associated with the usage of its products. While some consumers supported J&J’s way of handling the crisis, others stated that they would never use the product and raised questions about whether J&J valued profits over human health. Some critics felt that by not issuing a warning on its Baby Powder, J&J had diluted the brand and breached the trust of its consumers. They believed that J&J would face an uphill task restoring the faith of its consumers and ensuring them that it did not value profits over the safety of its consumers. What public relations and crisis management strategy should J&J adopt to tackle the crisis at the company? How would it restore the faith of consumers in the company when they are wondering whether J&J values profits over human health? How should J&J assure its consumers that it is an ethical company that is more concerned about the health of the consumers than profits?

Learning Objectives

The case is structured to achieve the following Learning Objectives:

• Discuss the challenges faced by J&J with regard to its talcum powder controversy.
• Analyze whether J&J’s communication strategy during a crisis can help it restore the faith of its customers in the company.
• Design a crisis management and public relations strategy for J&J to prove its customers than it did not value profits over their safety.

Keywords

Johnson & Johnson,Baby Powder,Ovarian cancer,Compensatory damages,Punitive damages,Negligent practices,Deceptive marketing,Public awareness,Campaign for Safe Cosmetics,Public relations,Crisis management strategy,Brand dilution,Lawsuits"