| Commitments and Contingencies | Commitments and Contingencies The Company, and its Parent, are involved in various lawsuits and claims relating to intellectual property, commercial contracts, product liability, labeling, marketing, advertising, pricing, foreign exchange controls, antitrust and trade regulation, labor and employment, pension, indemnification, data privacy and security, environmental, health and safety and tax matters; governmental investigations; and other legal proceedings that arise from time to time in the ordinary course of their business. The Company records accruals for loss contingencies associated with these legal matters when it is probable that a liability will be incurred, and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. As of January 1, 2023, the Company has determined that the liabilities associated with certain litigation matters are probable and can be reasonably estimated. The Company has accrued for these matters and will continue to monitor each related legal issue and adjust accruals as might be warranted based on new information and further developments in accordance with ASC 450-20-25. For these and other litigation and regulatory matters discussed below for which a loss is probable or reasonably possible, the Company is unable to estimate the possible loss or range of loss beyond the amounts accrued. Amounts accrued for legal contingencies often result from a complex series of judgments about future events and uncertainties that rely heavily on estimates and assumptions including timing of related payments. The ability to make such estimates and judgments can be affected by various factors including, among other things, whether damages sought in the proceedings are unsubstantiated or indeterminate; scientific and legal discovery has not commenced or is not complete; proceedings are in early stages; matters present legal uncertainties; there are significant facts in dispute; procedural or jurisdictional issues; the uncertainty and unpredictability of the number of potential claims; ability to achieve comprehensive multi-party settlements; complexity of related cross-claims and counterclaims; and/or there are numerous parties involved. To the extent adverse awards, judgments or verdicts have been rendered against the Company, the Company does not record an accrual until a loss is determined to be probable and can be reasonably estimated. In the Company’s opinion, based on its examination of these matters, its experience to date and discussions with counsel, the ultimate outcome of legal proceedings, net of liabilities accrued in the Company’s Balance Sheets, is not expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position. However, the resolution of, or increase in accruals for, one or more of these matters in any reporting period may have a material adverse effect on the Company’s results of operations and cash flows for that period. Product Liability Johnson & Johnson and certain of its subsidiaries are involved in numerous product liability claims and lawsuits involving multiple products. Claimants in these cases seek substantial compensatory and, where available, punitive damages. While the Company believes it has substantial defenses, it is not feasible to predict the ultimate outcome of litigation. From time to time, even if it has substantial defenses, the Company considers isolated settlements based on a variety of circumstances. The Company has established accruals for product liability claims and lawsuits in compliance with ASC 450-20 based on currently available information, which in some cases may be limited. The Company accrues an estimate of the legal defense costs needed to defend each matter when those costs are probable and can be reasonably estimated. For certain of these matters, the Company has accrued additional amounts such as estimated costs associated with settlements, damages and other losses. Product liability accruals can represent projected product liability for thousands of claims around the world, each in different litigation environments and with different fact patterns. Changes to the accruals may be required in the future as additional information becomes available. A significant number of personal injury claims alleging that talc causes cancer were made against Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. and Johnson & Johnson arising out of the use of body powders containing talc, primarily JOHNSON’S Baby Powder. The number of these personal injury lawsuits, filed in state and federal courts in the United States as well as outside the United States, continued to increase. In talc cases that previously have gone to trial, the Company and/or its Parent have obtained a number of defense verdicts, but there also have been verdicts against the Company, many of which have been reversed on appeal. In June 2020, the Missouri Court of Appeals reversed in part and affirmed in part a July 2018 verdict of $4,700 million in Ingham v. Johnson & Johnson, et al., No. ED 207476 (Mo. App.), reducing the overall award to $2,100 million. An application for transfer of the case to the Missouri Supreme Court was subsequently denied. As such, the Company accrued approximately $2,500 million (including interest) to Other (income) expense, net, operating in the fourth quarter of 2020 (the “Ingham decision”). In June 2021 a petition for certiorari, seeking a review of the Ingham decision by the United States Supreme Court, was denied. As such, the Company paid the award, which, including interest, totaled approximately $2,500 million. The facts and circumstances, including the terms of the award, were unique to the Ingham decision and not representative of other claims brought against the Company. The Company and its Parent continue to believe that it has strong legal grounds to contest the other talc verdicts that it has appealed. Notwithstanding the Company’s confidence in the safety of its talc products, in certain circumstances the Company has settled cases. In addition to the Ingham decision, the costs associated with certain other settlements, primarily related to mesothelioma cases, and defense costs are reflected in the Company’s accruals noted above. In 2021 and 2020, the Company recorded litigation expense primarily associated with talc-related reserves and certain settlements offset by legal fees and other costs paid. Prior to 2020, the accruals and payments primarily related to defense costs. In October 2021, Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. (“Old JJCI”), a former subsidiary of the Parent and the Company, implemented a corporate restructuring (the “2021 Corporate Restructuring”). As a result of that restructuring, Old JJCI ceased to exist and three new entities were created: (a) LTL Management LLC, a North Carolina limited liability company (“LTL” or “Debtor”); (b) Royalty A&M LLC, a North Carolina limited liability company and a direct subsidiary of LTL (“RAM”); and (c) the Debtor’s direct parent, Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc., a New Jersey company (“New JJCI”). The operations, assets and liabilities of New JJCI will be transferred to the Company as part of the Separation, while LTL and RAM will be retained by the Parent. The Debtor received certain of Old JJCI’s assets and became solely responsible for all liabilities on account of or relating to harm arising out of, based upon or resulting from, directly or indirectly, the presence of or exposure to old JJCI’s talc or talc-containing products sold in the United States and Canada (the “Talc-Related Liabilities”). Pursuant to the Separation, Johnson & Johnson will retain the Talc-Related Liabilities and, as a result, will agree to indemnify the Company for the Talc-Related Liabilities and any costs associated with resolving such claims. Such claims represent the vast majority of claims relating to harm arising out of, based upon or resulting from, directly or indirectly, the presence of or exposure to talc or talc-containing products. The Company will, however, remain responsible for all liabilities on account of or relating to harm arising out of, based upon or resulting from, directly or indirectly, the presence of or exposure to talc or talc-containing products sold outside the United States or Canada. After and in connection with the 2021 Corporate Restructuring, LTL commenced a chapter 11 case (the “LTL Bankruptcy Case”), which is pending before the United States Bankruptcy Court, District of New Jersey (“Bankruptcy Court”). Through its intermediary position between the Parent and LTL, New JJCI has agreed to provide funding to LTL for the payment of amounts the Bankruptcy Court determines are owed by LTL through the establishment of a trust in furtherance of this purpose. In October 2021 and in conjunction with the creation of LTL as part of the 2021 Corporate Restructuring, New JJCI’s liability of $1,016 million was transferred to the Parent and settled through Net Investment from Parent as all legal expenses and liabilities subsequent to October 2021 will be settled by LTL and ultimately the Parent. As such, there are no remaining Talc-Related Liabilities in the Company’s financial statements as of the end of fiscal year 2021 and no activity during 2022. A summary of the talc liabilities from 2020 to 2021 is included below: (Dollars in Millions) 2021 2020 Beginning Balance $ 4,043 $ 462 Accruals 154 4,029 Payments (3,181) (448) Transfer of liability to Parent (1,016) — Ending Balance $ — $ 4,043 In February 2019, Old JJCI’s talc supplier, Imerys Talc America, Inc. and two of its affiliates, Imerys Talc Vermont, Inc. and Imerys Talc Canada, Inc. (collectively, “Imerys”) filed a voluntary petition under chapter 11 of the United States Code (the “Bankruptcy Code”) in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the “Imerys Bankruptcy”). The Imerys Bankruptcy relates to Imerys’s potential liability for personal injury from exposure to talcum powder sold by Imerys (“Talc Claims”). In its bankruptcy, Imerys alleges it has claims against the Parent and Old JJCI for indemnification and rights to joint insurance proceeds. In May 2020, Imerys, its parent Imerys S.A., the Tort Claimants’ Committee (“TCC”), and the Future Claimants’ Representative (“FCR”) (collectively, the “Plan Proponents”) filed their Plan of Reorganization (the “Plan”) and the Disclosure Statement related thereto. The Plan Proponents have since filed numerous amendments to the Plan and Disclosure Statement. A hearing on the Plan Proponent’s Disclosure Statement was held in January 2021, and the Court entered an order approving the Disclosure Statement, allowing Imerys to proceed with soliciting votes on the Plan. In March 2021, the Parent voted to reject the Plan and opted out of the consensual releases in the Plan. In April 2021, the Plan Proponents announced the Plan had received the requisite number of accepting votes to confirm the Plan. The Parent challenged certain improprieties with respect to portions of the vote and sought to disqualify those votes. In October 2021, the Bankruptcy Court issued a ruling deeming thousands of votes as withdrawn. In October 2021, Imerys cancelled the confirmation hearing on the Plan. Imerys, the TCC, the FCR, and certain of Imerys’s insurers, and certain parties in the Cyprus Mines chapter 11 case (described below) (collectively the “Mediation Parties”) have since agreed to engage in mediation. The most recent term of the mediation ended on December 31, 2022. In July 2021, Imerys commenced an adversary proceeding against the Parent and Old JJCI in the Imerys Bankruptcy (the “Imerys Adversary Proceeding”). The Imerys Adversary Proceeding sought, among other things, certain declarations with respect to the indemnification obligations allegedly owed by the Parent and Old JJCI to Imerys. The TCC and FCR simultaneously filed a motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin the Parent and Old JJCI from undergoing a corporate restructuring that would separate the Parent and Old JJCI’s talc liabilities from its other assets. The Bankruptcy Court denied the motion. The Parent and Old JJCI thereafter filed a motion to dismiss the adversary proceeding. The Bankruptcy Court has not yet decided the motion to dismiss. In October 2021, the Parent and Old JJCI filed a Notice of Bankruptcy Filing and Stay of Proceedings clarifying that the automatic stay arising upon the filing of the LTL Bankruptcy Case should apply to the Imerys Adversary Proceeding. In June 2020, Cyprus Amax Mines Corporation (CAMC) and its parent (together, “Cyprus”), which had owned certain Imerys talc mines, filed an adversary proceeding against the Parent and Old JJCI and Imerys in the Imerys Bankruptcy seeking a declaration of indemnity rights under certain contractual agreements (the “Cyprus Adversary Proceeding”). The Parent and Old JJCI deny such indemnification is owed, and filed a motion to dismiss the adversary complaint. In February 2021, Cyprus filed a voluntary petition for relief under chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code and filed its Disclosure Statement and Plan. The Plan contemplates a settlement with Imerys and talc claimants where Cyprus would make a monetary contribution to a trust established under the Imerys Plan in exchange for an injunction against Talc Claims asserted against it. Cyprus has not yet sought approval of its Disclosure Statement and Plan. Cyprus, along with the TCC and FCR appointed in the Cyprus chapter 11 case, have agreed to participate in the mediation with the Mediation Parties. In October 2021, the Parent and Old JJCI filed a Notice of Bankruptcy Filing and Stay of Proceedings clarifying that the automatic stay arising upon the filing of the LTL Bankruptcy Case should apply to the Cyprus Adversary Proceeding. In June 2022, Cyprus commenced an Adversary Proceeding in its chapter 11 case seeking an order enforcing the automatic stay by enjoining parties from commencing or continuing “talc-related claims” against CAMC. In June 2022, the court entered a preliminary injunction order enjoining claimants from pursuing talc-related claims against CAMC through January 2023. In February 2021, several of the Parent’s insurers involved in coverage litigation in New Jersey State Court (the “Coverage Action”) filed a motion in the Imerys Bankruptcy Court proceeding seeking a determination that the automatic stay does not apply to the Coverage Action and, in the alternative, seeking relief from the automatic stay to allow them to continue to litigate their claims in the Coverage Action. In March 2021, the Parent filed a limited response and reservation of rights with respect to the motion. The Court entered an agreed order modifying the stay to allow the litigation in the Coverage Action to continue. In October 2021, LTL filed a Notice of Bankruptcy Filing and Stay of Proceedings clarifying that the automatic stay arising upon the filing of the LTL Bankruptcy Case should apply to the Coverage Action. In March 2022, the Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey ruled that the automatic stay in the LTL Bankruptcy Case applied to the Coverage Action, but, in August and September 2022, the Bankruptcy Court issued two rulings providing that the insurers involved in the Coverage Action could pursue third-party discovery in connection with the Coverage Action. In addition, Johnson & Johnson has received inquiries, subpoenas and requests to produce documents regarding talc matters from various U.S. governmental authorities and is also subject to consumer protection cases and investigations from state attorneys general. The Company has produced documents and responded to inquiries, and will continue to cooperate with government inquiries. Claims for personal injury have been made against Johnson and Johnson Consumer Inc. (JJCI), arising out of the use of TYLENOL, an over-the-counter pain medication, alleging that prenatal exposure to acetaminophen is associated with the development of autism spectrum disorder and/or attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. In October 2022, lawsuits filed in federal courts in the United States were organized as a multi-district litigation in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Product liability lawsuits continue to be filed, and the Company continues to receive information with respect to potential costs and the anticipated number of cases. In addition, lawsuits have been filed in Canada against our Canadian affiliate. General Litigation In 2006, Johnson & Johnson acquired Pfizer’s OTC business including the U.S. rights to OTC Zantac, which were on-sold to Boehringer Ingelheim (“BI”) as a condition to merger control approval such that BI assumed product liability risk for U.S. sales after 2006. Johnson & Johnson received indemnification from BI and gave Pfizer indemnification in connection with the transfer of the Zantac business to BI from Pfizer, through Johnson & Johnson. In November 2019, Johnson & Johnson received a demand for indemnification from Pfizer, pursuant to the 2006 Stock and Asset Purchase Agreement between Johnson & Johnson and Pfizer. In January 2020, Johnson & Johnson received a demand for indemnification from BI, pursuant to the 2006 Asset Purchase Agreement among Johnson & Johnson, Pfizer and BI. Pursuant to the agreements, Pfizer and BI have asserted indemnification claims against Johnson & Johnson ostensibly related to Zantac sales by Pfizer. In November 2022, Johnson & Johnson received a demand for indemnification from GlaxoSmithKline LLC (“GSK”), pursuant to the 2006 Stock and Asset Purchase Agreement between Johnson & Johnson and Pfizer, and certain 1993, 1998, and 2002 agreements between Glaxo Wellcome and Warner-Lambert entities. The notices seek indemnification for legal claims related to over-the-counter Zantac (ranitidine) products. Plaintiffs in the underlying actions allege that Zantac and other over-the-counter medications that contain ranitidine may degrade and result in unsafe levels of NDMA (N-nitrosodimethylamine) and can cause or have caused various cancers in patients using the products and seek declaratory and monetary relief. Johnson & Johnson has rejected all the demands for indemnification relating to the underlying actions. No Johnson & Johnson entity sold Zantac in the United States and no Johnson & Johnson entity is a party to the U.S. Zantac litigation. In 2016, Johnson & Johnson Inc. (Canadian affiliate) (“JJI”) sold the Canadian Zantac business to Sanofi Consumer Health, Inc. (“Sanofi”). Under the 2016 Asset Purchase Agreement between JJI and Sanofi (the “2016 Purchase Agreement”), Sanofi assumed certain liabilities including those pertaining to Zantac (ranitidine) product sold by Sanofi after closing and related recalls, withdrawals, replacements or related market actions, and JJI is required to indemnify Sanofi for certain other excluded liabilities. In November 2019, JJI received notice reserving rights to claim indemnification from Sanofi pursuant to the 2016 Purchase Agreement. The notice refers to indemnification for legal claims in two class actions with similar allegations to the U.S. litigation related to over-the-counter Zantac (ranitidine) products. Johnson & Johnson and JJI have also been named in putative class actions filed in Canada with similar allegations regarding Zantac or ranitidine use. These actions are pending before the courts of Alberta, British Columbia, Quebec and Ontario. JJI was also named as a defendant, along with other manufacturers, in various personal injury actions in Canada related to Zantac products. JJI has provided Sanofi notice reserving rights to claim indemnification pursuant to the 2016 Purchase Agreement related to the class actions and personal injury actions. It is not possible, at this stage, to assess reliably the outcome of these lawsuits or the potential financial impact on the Company. Beginning in May 2021, multiple putative class actions were filed in state and federal courts (California, Florida, New York, and New Jersey) against various Johnson & Johnson entities alleging violations of state consumer fraud statutes based on nondisclosure of alleged benzene contamination of certain Neutrogena and Aveeno sunscreen products and the affirmative promotion of those products as “safe”; and, in at least one case, alleging a strict liability manufacturing defect and failure to warn claims, asserting that the named plaintiffs suffered unspecified injuries as a result of alleged exposure to benzene. The Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation has consolidated all pending actions, except one case pending in New Jersey state court, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Fort Lauderdale Division. In October 2021, the Company reached an agreement in principle for the settlement of a nationwide class, encompassing the claims of the consolidated actions, subject to approval by the Florida federal Court. In December 2021, plaintiffs in the consolidated actions filed a motion for preliminary approval of a nationwide class settlement. The settlement was preliminarily approved by the court in March 2022. On February 28, 2023, an order granting final approval of the settlement, certifying the settlement class and awarding attorney’s fees was entered. Johnson & Johnson (subsequently substituted by JJCI) along with more than 120 other companies, is a defendant in a cost recovery and action brought by Occidental Chemical Corporation in June 2018 in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, related to the clean-up of a section of the Lower Passaic River in New Jersey. The Company and/or certain of its subsidiaries are involved from time to time in various lawsuits and claims relating to intellectual property, commercial contracts, product liability, labeling, marketing, advertising, pricing, antitrust and trade regulation, labor and employment, indemnification, data privacy and security, environmental, health and safety, and tax matters, governmental investigations, and other legal proceedings that arise in the ordinary course of their business. The Company records accruals for loss contingencies associated with these legal matters when it is probable that a liability has been incurred, and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. As of July 2, 2023, the Company has determined that the liabilities associated with certain litigation matters are probable and can be reasonably estimated. The Company has accordingly accrued for those contingent liabilities that are material and will continue to monitor each related legal issue and adjust accruals as might be warranted based on new information and further developments in accordance with Accounting Standards Codification (“ASC”) 450-20-25. Accrued liabilities related to litigation matters are included in Accrued liabilities and Other liabilities on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. For these and other litigation and regulatory matters discussed below for which a loss is probable or reasonably possible, the Company is unable to estimate the possible loss or range of loss beyond the amounts accrued. Amounts accrued for legal contingencies often result from a complex series of judgments about future events and uncertainties that rely heavily on estimates and assumptions including timing of related payments. The ability to make such estimates and judgments can be affected by various factors including whether, among other things, damages sought in the proceedings are unsubstantiated or indeterminate; scientific and legal discovery has commenced or is complete; proceedings are in early stages; matters present legal uncertainties; significant facts are in dispute; procedural or jurisdictional issues exist; the number of potential claims is certain or predictable; comprehensive multi-party settlements are achievable; there are complex related cross-claims and counterclaims; and/or there are numerous parties involved. In the Company’s opinion, based on its examination of these matters, its experience to date and discussions with counsel, the ultimate outcome of legal proceedings, net of liabilities accrued in the Company’s Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets, is not expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position. However, the resolution of, or increase in accruals for, one or more of these matters in any reporting period may have a material adverse effect on the Company’s results of operations and cash flows for that period. Product Liability The Company and/or certain of its subsidiaries are involved in numerous product liability claims and lawsuits involving multiple products. Claimants in these cases seek substantial compensatory and, where available, punitive damages. While the Company believes it has substantial defenses, it is not feasible to predict the ultimate outcome of litigation. From time to time, even if it has substantial defenses, the Company considers isolated settlements based on a variety of circumstances. The Company may accrue an estimate of the legal defense costs needed to defend each matter when those costs are probable and can be reasonably estimated. For certain of these matters, the Company may accrue additional amounts such as estimated costs associated with settlements, damages, and other losses. Product liability accruals can represent projected product liability for thousands of claims around the world, each in different litigation environments and with different fact patterns. Changes to the accruals may be required in the future as additional information becomes available. Claims for personal injury have been made against our subsidiary Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. (“JJCI”) in federal court arising out of the use of Tylenol, an over-the-counter pain medication, alleging that in utero exposure to acetaminophen (the active ingredient in Tylenol) is associated with the development of autism spectrum disorder and/or attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in children. In October 2022, lawsuits filed in federal courts in the United States were organized as a multi-district litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. No trial dates have been set in these actions. Product liability lawsuits continue to be filed, and the Company continues to receive information with respect to potential costs and the anticipated number of cases. In addition, a lawsuit has been filed in state court against JJCI, the Company and J&J, and lawsuits have been filed in Canada against our subsidiary Johnson & Johnson Inc. (Canadian affiliate) (“JJI”) and J&J. At this stage in these proceedings, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate either the likelihood or the magnitude of its potential liability arising out these claims and lawsuits. General Litigation In 2006, J&J acquired Pfizer’s over-the-counter (“OTC”) business including the U.S. rights to OTC Zantac, which were on-sold to Boehringer Ingelheim (“BI”) as a condition to merger control approval such that BI assumed product liability risk for U.S. sales after 2006. J&J received indemnification from BI and gave Pfizer indemnification in connection with the transfer of the Zantac business to BI from Pfizer, through J&J. In November 2019, J&J received a demand for indemnification from Pfizer, pursuant to the 2006 Stock and Asset Purchase Agreement between J&J and Pfizer. In January 2020, J&J received a demand for indemnification from BI, pursuant to the 2006 Asset Purchase Agreement among J&J, Pfizer and BI. Pursuant to the agreements, Pfizer and BI have asserted indemnification claims against J&J ostensibly related to Zantac sales by Pfizer. In November 2022, J&J received a demand for indemnification from GlaxoSmithKline LLC (“GSK”), pursuant to the 2006 Stock and Asset Purchase Agreement between J&J and Pfizer, and certain 1993, 1998, and 2002 agreements between Glaxo Wellcome and Warner-Lambert entities. The notices seek indemnification for legal claims related to over-the-counter Zantac (ranitidine) products. Plaintiffs in the underlying actions allege that Zantac and other over-the-counter medications that contain ranitidine may degrade and result in unsafe levels of NDMA (N-nitrosodimethylamine) and can cause or have caused various cancers in patients using the products and seek declaratory and monetary relief. J&J has rejected all the demands for indemnification relating to the underlying actions. No J&J entity sold Zantac in the United States. In 2016, JJI sold the Canadian Zantac business to Sanofi Consumer Health, Inc. (“Sanofi”). Under the 2016 Asset Purchase Agreement between JJI and Sanofi (the “2016 Purchase Agreement”), Sanofi assumed certain liabilities including those pertaining to Zantac (ranitidine) product sold by Sanofi after closing and losses arising from or relating to recalls, withdrawals, replacements or related market actions or post-sale warning in respect of products sold by Sanofi after the closing, and JJI is required to indemnify Sanofi for certain other excluded liabilities. In November 2019, JJI received a notice reserving rights to claim indemnification from Sanofi pursuant to the 2016 Purchase Agreement. The notice refers to indemnification for legal claims in class actions and various individual personal injury actions with similar allegations to the U.S. litigation related to over-the-counter Zantac (ranitidine) products. J&J and/or JJI have also been named in four of the seven putative class actions filed in Canada with similar allegations regarding Zantac or ranitidine use. Of the four putative class actions naming J&J and/or JJI, the British Columbia action has been stayed, the Alberta action has been discontinued, and the Quebec action has been stayed. The Ontario action is pending, but not currently active. JJI was also named as a defendant, along with other manufacturers, in various personal injury actions in Canada related to Zantac products. JJI has provided Sanofi notice reserving rights to claim indemnification pursuant to the 2016 Purchase Agreement related to the class actions and personal injury actions. At this stage in these proceedings, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate either the likelihood or the magnitude of its potential liability arising out these claims and lawsuits. Beginning in May 2021, multiple putative class actions were filed in state and federal courts (California, Florida, New York, and New Jersey) against various J&J entities alleging violations of state consumer fraud statutes based on nondisclosure of alleged benzene contamination of certain Neutrogena and Aveeno sunscreen products and the affirmative promotion of those products as “safe”; and, in at least one case, alleging strict liability manufacturing defect and failure to warn claims, asserting that the named plaintiffs suffered unspecified injuries as a result of alleged exposure to benzene. The Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation has consolidated all pending actions, except one case pending in New Jersey state court, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Fort Lauderdale Division. In October 2021, an affiliate of the Company reached an agreement in principle for the settlement of a nationwide class, encompassing the claims of the consolidated actions, subject to approval by the Florida federal Court. In December 2021, plaintiffs in the consolidated actions filed a motion for preliminary approval of a nationwide class settlement. In February 2023, an order granting final approval of the settlement, certifying the settlement class and awarding attorney’s fees was entered. A Notice of Appeal was filed in April 2023. J&J (subsequently substituted by JJCI) along with more than 120 other companies, is a defendant in a cost recovery and action brought by Occidental Chemical Corporation in June 2018 in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, related to the clean-up of a section of the Lower Passaic River in New Jersey. Certain defendants (not including JJCI) have executed a settlement with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Department of Justice, which is subject to public comment. The settlement, if judicially approved, will be confirmed through a judicial Consent Decree. The case has been administratively closed but can be re-opened upon request, following a decision on the Consent Decree. The Company or its subsidiaries are also parties to various proceedings brought under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, commonly known as Superfund, and comparable state, local or foreign law |
