Let's consider, for a moment, that they paid nine billion (with a B) as a settlement because they thought that it would be cheaper than the outcome of fully litigating it. Which is to say, $9B was the cheaper option.

Regardless of the numbers, for that to be true, you've got to be pretty convinced you've fucked up really hard.

No, you just have to be convinced that there's a pretty good chance that a jury can be convinced that you need to pay for what you did.

Clearly J&J was convinced

What do you think the lawsuit was about? You think J&J is being forced to pay the measly 8.9 billion just because they want this to go away? 40,000 people got cancer that we know of. People should be in jail.

Where is this figure given? I can't see it (may have skipped over it accidentally)

It is the number of members in the class.

Which would just be people that got a relevant cancer that also used the product - that signed up to be part of the class.

People get cancer all the time. It’s very, very hard to prove a causal relationship.

Assumably this is why there’s a trial. J&J is willing to pay $9B to avoid one; this leads me to believe that they think they have a significant risk of having cancer be linked to their product.

40,000 people claimed it did and followed through with legal action. Sure, maybe only a percentage of them actually got it from talc. But globally, what percent of people who did get cancer from talc actually sue? Also likely a low percentage.

Maybe none?

Lawyers don't create the data.

No, but they certainly take weak data and argue why it's strong.

And they make a ton of money doing it.

And? That has nothing to do with what I'm replying to. Your just making another complaint.