The liabilities, if you extrapolate from earlier large judgements is something enormous, like 2 trillion USD IIRC. J&J is big but nobody is that big, it would just vaporize them. We don't really have a theory of liability which scales infinitely, and juries are probably not the best way to evaluate damages in the trillion dollar range.

These are very sympathetic plaintiffs but the links between the talc use and asbestos content is pretty hand wavy, J&J's specific knowledge of it is difficult to convincingly establish over decades, and the link between the exposure and specific cases of mesothelioma is also hard to prove

I don't know what the answer is here, but as a society we decided it wasn't viable to hold cigarette companies liable for every lung cancer, McDonalds for every Big Mac induced heart attack. You can directly tie air particulate to emphysema rates around hundreds of industrial sites. And the links, risk, and company knowledge is waaaay more established in those cases. Should this case be different because the defendants pockets are deeper?