Jonhson & Johnson, a company that is the trademark of baby products around the world is now being questioned whether the products are safe to use or no. This is not the first time that a petition has been signed against Johnson & Johnson. There have been around 9,000 claims saying that the products of J&J have cancerous properties. A Missouri jury has asked the establishment to pay a compensation of $4.69 billion to 22 women who developed ovarian cancer due to the usage of it's product. The verdict has created history as it is the largest suit ever faced by J&J. The company calls it all "fundamentally unfair" and is planning to appeal against the decision. The women and folks allege that the company was aware of all the harms since 1970 still it decided to keep it's users in the dark.

"Johnson & Johnson is deeply disappointed in the verdict, which was the product of a fundamentally unfair process," the company said in a statement.

"Every verdict against Johnson & Johnson in this court that has gone through the appeals process has been reversed and the multiple errors present in this trial were worse than those in the prior trials which have been reversed," J&J added, saying that it would pursue all available appellate remedies.

The company stands strong on the fact that It's products do not contain asbestos or any cancerous items. It has turned a lot of verdicts on its side of the table in previous hearings.

Mark Lanier after the judgement released a statement where he warned the company to be truthful to its customers and run a warning on all of it's products.

According to an article by TIME, "The company will appeal," Carol Goodrich, a spokeswoman, said in an email. The verdict "was the product of a fundamentally unfair process that allowed plaintiffs to present a group of 22 women, most of whom had no connection to Missouri, in a single case all alleging that they developed ovarian cancer,'' she said.

The result, "which awarded the exact same amounts to all plaintiffs irrespective of their individual facts, and differences in applicable law, reflects that the evidence in the case was simply overwhelmed by the prejudice of this type of proceeding," Goodrich added.

The judgement is a setback to one and all and needs to be taken with all seriousness.