"The trial jury sent a loud message alerting the world to the dangers of talc. Now that message has been confirmed through each level the state's appellate system," said Mark Lanier, founder of The Lanier Law Firm in Houston, and lead counsel for the plaintiffs.

His firm's partner in charge of appeals, Kevin Parker, added, "Based on this decision it is clear the Johnson & Johnson should accept the findings of the jury and the appellate court and move forward with proper compensation to the victims of their baby powder products."

Johnson & Johnson, in an emailed statement, said it would petition the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case. In a nod to the Supreme Court's 2017 holding in Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Superior Court of California, which limited jurisdiction in mass actions, Johnson & Johnson referenced the "flawed legal process" that allowed 22 women, most of whom had "no connection to Missouri," to combine their cases into a single talc trial.

"After exhausting its requests of appellate review in the State of Missouri, Johnson & Johnson will be pursuing further review of the Ingham verdict by the United States Supreme Court," the company said in an emailed statement, referring to the case's name, Robert Ingham v. Johnson & Johnson. "The company believes Ingham was a fundamentally flawed trial, grounded in a faulty presentation of the facts. The verdict is also at odds with decades of independent scientific evaluations confirming Johnson's Baby Powder is safe, does not contain asbestos and does not cause cancer."

New York appellate heavyweight Josh Rosenkranz, at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, and Thomas Weaver of Armstrong Teasdale in St. Louis, had filed Johnson & Johnson's application for transfer before the Missouri Supreme Court.

"Left undisturbed, the opinion will set the standard for when mass trials are to be prohibited," they wrote. "The answer appears to be almost never."

Numerous amici groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Washington Legal Foundation, had supported Johnson & Johnson's application.

In its decision earlier this year, the Missouri Court of Appeals had reduced the award after tossing the verdict as to two of the women and partially reversing as to 15 others who were not from Missouri. The appeals court refused, however, to toss $1.6 billion in punitive damages, concluding that Johnson & Johnson's conduct was "outrageous because of evil motive or reckless indifference."

Last year, the Missouri Supreme Court sided with the company in another talcum powder case and halted planned trials that featured 13 and 24 women at a time.

Johnson & Johnson announced earlier this year it would discontinue sales of talc-based baby powder.