The high cost of junk science verdicts in Los Angeles

A Los Angeles jury recently delivered a billion-dollar verdict in a case alleging that talc baby powder caused an elderly woman's mesothelioma and death. While the family's loss is undeniably tragic, this verdict is just the latest in a trend of trial lawyers weaponizing "made-for-litigation" science. 

It's the trial lawyer playbook at work -- forum shopping, pervasive trial lawyer advertising, and judicial acceptance of junk science all feed a never-ending cycle.  

California long has been one of the nation's worst Judicial Hellholes(r), but Los Angeles County is cementing itself as the worst of the worst, showing how difficult it will be to break this litigious cycle.  

Forum shopping 

Plaintiffs' firms prefer filing cases in Judicial Hellholes(r) thanks to low evidentiary barriers and plaintiff leaning judges in those courts. In California, instead of seeing the label as a call to action, the situation is growing more dire. For the second consecutive year, Los Angeles County ranked among the Top 3 jurisdictions for mesothelioma filings. That's not by coincidence; it's by design. 

 When courts repeatedly deliver outsized verdicts with little scrutiny of the science behind them, plaintiffs' lawyers take note -- and follow the money. 

 Trial lawyer advertising 

To bolster this litigation machine and drum up the client base, California's airwaves, billboards, and more are flooded with legal services ads. Between Jan. 1, 2024, and June 30, 2025, lawyers spent nearly $464 million on 3.9 million legal ads across California markets. 

In 2024, Los Angeles was the top media market in the country for these ads, with nearly $165 million spent. More than 725,000 ads ran, encouraging potential claimants to call hotlines, fill out forms, or join mass tort actions -- often before any credible evidence of harm has been established. 

Beyond recruiting clients, this constant stream of alarmist messaging serves a two-fold purpose for the trial bar by biasing potential jurors. By the time they enter the courtroom, many jurors have been subjected to months of misleading ads peddling junk science claims. 

Junk science in the courtroom 

Once the docket is full, plaintiffs' lawyers turn to "experts" whose testimony often strays far from the scientific mainstream. In the Moore talc trial that produced this billion-dollar verdict, the plaintiff's expert, Dr. Steven Haber, testified that spontaneously occurring mesothelioma is "exceptionally rare" and that virtually every case stems from asbestos exposure.  

However, peer-reviewed research overwhelmingly contradicts this assertion. The World Health Organization has noted that in North America, only an estimated 20% of mesothelioma cases in women are related to asbestos exposure.  

While Dr. Haber is not a mesothelioma expert outside the courtroom, one of the two articles he has authored on the topic also undermine his own claims in court. Dr. Haber documented a case of an 83-year-old woman who developed mesothelioma without evidence of past asbestos exposure. The woman in the Moore case was 87 at the time of her diagnosis. Age is a known risk factor for mesothelioma, regardless of exposure.  

Allowing Dr. Haber to testify about the purportedly "exceptionally rare" nature of naturally occurring mesothelioma skewed the facts during this trial. The court failed in its gatekeeping duty and should have ensured that only reliable, scientifically grounded evidence reached jurors, rather than disproven theories.  

A broader junk science problem 

Unchecked junk science evidence in the courts unfortunately isn't limited only to talc. California courts continue to embrace scientifically questionable claims in other mass tort contexts -- particularly glyphosate and benzene. 

In the Roundup cases, California juries issued enormous awards largely grounded in a 2015 report from the International Agency for Research on Cancer, which labeled glyphosate "probably carcinogenic." That report directly conflicts with conclusions of both the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Health Canada, which found no evidence linking glyphosate to cancer in humans. 

Later investigations revealed that an "invited specialist," Christopher Portier, advised IARC on its glyphosate assessment while being paid by anti-pesticide groups and plaintiffs' law firms suing Monsanto. Following his involvement, the IARC study was reportedly altered in at least 10 instances to downplay findings showing no link to cancer. Yet, California courts continue to allow this flawed report to serve as the basis for astronomical verdicts. 

Similarly, plaintiffs recently seized on discredited science in liability claims alleging benzene in acne products. Filed in California federal court last year, these suits rely on claims from a private lab, Valisure, whose findings have been in the crosshairs before. The lawsuits asserted that acne products contain unhealthy amounts of benzene and that the manufacturers failed to warn consumers of these dangers in the products' labels. However, the products only produced benzene when stored at extreme temperatures (up to 158°F) -- well above those found in a consumer's home or storage space under typical and reasonable conditions.  

The lawsuits came almost immediately following Valisure submitting a citizen's petition to the FDA requesting a recall of benzoyl peroxide products, showcasing such coordinated, made-for-litigation research.    

The cost of Nuclear Verdicts(r) 

Between 2013 and 2022, California had 199 nuclear verdicts(r) in personal injury and wrongful death litigation -- the most of any state -- with courts awarding more than $9 billion in damages in these cases with individual verdicts greater than $10 million each. Even considering its size, the state places in the Top 10 on a per-capita basis, and Los Angeles was home to more than one-third of the verdicts. 

 These high-dollar awards ripple through the economy: insurers raise rates, businesses leave the state, and consumers ultimately pay the price. Los Angeles residents pay one of the most expensive "tort taxes" in the nation -- $3,658 per person annually due to excessive tort costs. 

Breaking the cycle 

Los Angeles County has become winning turf for running the trial lawyer playbook -- where litigation strategy, not legitimate science, too often drives courtroom outcomes. To restore fairness and confidence in the civil justice system, judges must reassert their gatekeeping function and uphold standards for expert testimony that align with sound science. Otherwise, businesses will be deterred from investing in a state where justice is determined more by marketing than by merit. 

Justice should be based on truth, not theatrics. Until Los Angeles courts close their doors to junk science, the cycle of billion-dollar verdicts will continue to pad the pockets of a select few while further eroding the rule of law.