Products Liability
Our law firm handles hair relaxer lawsuits for uterine cancer and other consequences of hair relaxer products containing endocrine disruptors in all 50 states. These injuries include:
Millions of African American women in the U.S. regularly use hair relaxers. Recent scientific studies have shown that the chemicals in these products may increase the risk of uterine cancer. Women who have used hair relaxers over time and later developed one of these awful conditions are now holding manufacturers accountable through product liability lawsuits, seeking compensation for their suffering.
This page will provide the latest news and updates on the hair relaxer litigation, as well as our predictions about the potential settlement amounts victims of chemical hair relaxers may see.
Our firm has been fighting for victims like you for over twenty years. If you or a loved one used hair relaxers and were diagnosed with uterine or ovarian cancer, or one of the other injuries above, you could be eligible for significant compensation. Take the first step today by completing our free, no-obligation case evaluation form—it only takes a few minutes and could make a big difference in your future. You can also call us at 800-553-8082.
Hair Relaxer Class Action Lawsuit Updates
April 20, 2026 – Discovery Dispute
L’Oreal is now facing a motion over its responses to Requests for Admission about missing hair relaxer formulas. Plaintiffs say L’Oreal previously swore under oath it could not locate formulas for certain products and years, then later denied RFAs asking it to admit those formulas were never produced. L’Oreal responded by pointing plaintiffs to its 532,144-page production and telling them to find it themselves. Plaintiffs want the court to either strike the denials or force L’Oreal to identify the exact page numbers. That motion is fully briefed and pending.
April 17, 2026 – New Lawsuit Today
A new hair relaxer lawsuit was filed on Friday by a Brooklyn, New York resident who alleges that decades of using chemical hair straightening products caused her to develop endometrial cancer. This lawsuit is interesting because of the extraordinary length of product use and the specificity of the products identified.
The plaintiff claims she used hair relaxers continuously from 1967 to 2022, a span of 55 years. This makes her one of the longest-duration users in the litigation and presents a compelling causation narrative if her medical records support the timeline. Older plaintiffs usually do not do as well but this might be the exception to that rule.
The lawsuit names eight defendants: Avlon Industries, Godrej SON Holdings, L’Oréal USA and L’Oréal USA Products, Luster Products, Namaste Laboratories, SoftSheen-Carson, and Strength of Nature. She identified specific products from each manufacturer. From Avlon, she used the entire Affirm product line, including the Crème Relaxer, Sensitive Scalp Relaxer, Dry & Itchy Scalp Relaxer, and both FiberGuard variants. From Luster Products, she used the Pink Oil Moisturizer No-Lye Conditioning Relaxer and the Smooth Touch Relaxer. From Namaste Laboratories, she identified the ORS Olive Oil No-Mix Salon Formula Crème Relaxer and both the Professional No-Lye Relaxer Kit and Professional Crème Relaxer. From Strength of Nature, she used the African Pride Olive Miracle Deep Conditioning Crème-on-Crème No Lye Relaxer and three variants of the TCB Naturals line, including the Conditioning Argan Oil Vitamin E & Olive No-Lye Relaxer and the No-Base Crème Hair Relaxer with Protein & DNA.
She was diagnosed with endometrial cancer on April 19, 2023, so we may be right up on the New York statute of limitations. The plaintiff brought claims for negligence, strict liability for design defects and failure to warn, state consumer protection violations, and punitive damages. She did not assert claims for negligent misrepresentation, negligence per se, breach of warranties, fraud, fraudulent concealment, unjust enrichment, wrongful death, survival action, or loss of consortium.
The combination of her 55-year usage period, her recent 2023 diagnosis, and her identification of multiple specific products from eight different manufacturers makes this a factually strong case. If her medical records document her cancer clearly and her testimony about product use holds up, this is the type of case that could perform well in front of a jury: a woman who trusted these products for more than half a century and developed cancer just two years ago.
April 15, 2026 – How the Bellwether Process Will Work
The hair relaxer MDL just took a significant procedural turn. Judge Rowland scrapped the party-driven bellwether selection process and chose all 10 cases herself.
The original plan had the parties taking turns picking cases throughout April. That process is now dead. Instead, the court issued an order setting the full bellwether pool in a single motion.
The reasoning is straightforward. Bellwether trials are meant to test the strength of the claims and give both sides a realistic sense of what juries will do with the evidence. That only works if the cases are representative. Judge Rowland made clear she wants juries evaluating causation and damages without getting distracted by peripheral issues that have nothing to do with whether hair relaxers cause cancer.
So the court excluded several types of cases from the bellwether pool. No cases with only one or two defendants. No plaintiffs with memory loss, mental health conditions, or learning disabilities. No plaintiffs with other cancer diagnoses. And no plaintiffs who are also suing over talc.
That last exclusion is not just about avoiding overlapping litigation. It is about preventing jurors from getting sidetracked by questions that do not matter to the core dispute. If a plaintiff used talc products and hair relaxers, the jury has to sort through competing causation theories. If a plaintiff has another cancer diagnosis, the jury must determine which disease caused which damages. Judge Rowland does not want that noise although, at some point, we have to put a settlement number on those cases, too.
What she wants are trials that answer one question cleanly: did this plaintiff get cancer from using chemical hair relaxers, and if so, what is that case worth? The selection criteria make that intent obvious.
This is a strategic move that should benefit plaintiffs. By excluding cases with complicating factors, Judge Rowland is creating trials where the defendants cannot muddy the waters with alternative explanations for the plaintiff’s cancer. Clean, strong cases that go to trial and result in plaintiff verdicts put enormous pressure on defendants to settle the entire MDL rather than face hundreds or thousands of similar trials. This is a result you like when you like the merits of your case, and our lawyers love the merits of these claims.
April 1, 2026 – Case Count
There are now 11,371 hair relaxer lawsuits pending in the MDL.
March 9, 2026 – Status Hearing
Magistrate Judge Beth W. Jantz also held a status hearing on March 5, 2026, to take stock of where discovery stands in the hair relaxer MDL. The hearing focused on several discovery disputes raised in the parties’ February 26 joint status report, and the court followed up with a written order summarizing its rulings and next steps. The judge made clear that the parties should read the order carefully because it governs how discovery will proceed over the next several weeks.
For the most part, discovery involving the first wave defendants is now largely complete, which is an important milestone in any MDL. That phase of discovery typically involves the core corporate documents and internal communications that help show what the companies knew about their products and when they knew it. According to the court, that portion of the process is substantially wrapped up. Class-related discovery, however, is still ongoing and will continue to move forward.
Judge Jantz also set the next discovery checkpoint. The parties must file another joint status report by April 16th, and they will return to court for a discovery status hearing on April 23rd. Leadership for both sides must inform the court ahead of time whether they plan to appear in person or by video. That kind of regular reporting is typical in large MDLs and helps the court keep pressure on both sides to move the case forward.
Another issue the judge raised involves contention interrogatories, which are written questions that require a party to explain the factual basis for its claims or defenses. The parties apparently disagree about how those should be handled in this MDL. Judge Jantz instructed plaintiffs to submit examples by March 16 showing how other mass tort MDL courts have handled similar disputes. Defendants will then have until March 23 to file their own examples if they disagree.
The overall takeaway from Judge Jantz’s hearing is that discovery in the hair relaxer litigation is beginning to move past the heavy document production phase and toward the next stage (experts). As that process wraps up, the focus will increasingly shift to expert testimony and the legal fights that tend to define the value of the litigation.
March 14, 2026 – Fight Brewing Over Corporate Depositions
Plaintiffs are pressing to depose corporate representatives about product marketing, warnings, labeling, and advertising, while defendants are trying to replace those live depositions with written stipulations. That may sound like procedural housekeeping, but it is not. Corporate depositions are often where plaintiffs get real testimony about what these companies knew, what they told consumers, and how they sold these products for years without stronger warnings.
March 9, 2026 – Discovery Nearing a Turning Point
Magistrate Judge Jantz reported that discovery involving the first wave defendants is now largely complete, which means much of the core document production phase is wrapping up. That is a big milestone in any MDL because it usually marks the point where the litigation shifts away from gathering corporate records and toward expert testimony, dispositive motions, and the issues that will define what we will see at trial and what the settlement amounts of these cases might be.
March 3, 2026 – Case Count
There are now 11,440 hair relaxer lawsuits pending in the MDL.
March 1, 2026 – Dealing with Refiled and Reinstated Claims
In a February 2026 joint report, the parties in the hair relaxer MDL updated the court on plaintiffs who are attempting to reinstate previously dismissed cases or refile claims under the procedures established in Case Management Order 16.
According to the report, plaintiffs’ PFS liaison and defense counsel exchanged lists of cases on February 16, 2026, identifying claims that have been refiled or are seeking reinstatement since the last update in January 2025. The parties then met and conferred to verify details such as the correct case name, case number, and plaintiff identification number in the MDL system, and to determine whether each case qualifies for reinstatement or refiling under the court’s prior orders.
The report separates the cases into two categories: refiled cases and reinstated cases, and it also records the defendants’ position on each claim. Defendants are primarily challenging whether certain filings are timely and whether they comply with the court’s prior orders, including a November 2024 ruling that dismissed certain non-cancer claims without prejudice.
Under the MDL rules, any plaintiff who refiles or reinstates a case must submit a complete Plaintiff Fact Sheet and supporting documentation within ten business days. Whether plaintiffs meet that requirement will be addressed through the court’s existing case management process. Overall, the report functions as an administrative update to help the court track which dismissed claims are attempting to return to the litigation and whether those filings meet the MDL’s procedural requirements.
Chemicals in Hair Relaxer Can Cause Uterine Cancer
What is driving these chemical hair straightener lawsuits is new scientific evidence that has recently emerged which suggests that long-term use of hair relaxer products may cause increased rates of uterine cancer.
Uterine cancer (cancer of the uterus) is the 4th most common type of cancer in women. Each year, approximately 65,000 new cases of uterine cancer are diagnosed in the U.S. This accounts for about 3.5% of all cancer cases. The incidence rate of uterine cancer among black women is twice as high compared to white women in the U.S.
In October 2022, the results of a groundbreaking new medical study on the association between hair relaxers and cancer were published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute. The study took over 10 years and looked at the incidence rate of cancer among women who regularly used hair relaxers vs. women who never used hair relaxers.
The study found that women who used hair relaxers were more than twice as likely to be diagnosed with uterine cancer compared to non-users. More than twice is a huge finding that has jump-started the hair relaxer litigation.
Even more significant, the incidence rate of uterine cancer increase was even higher among women who reported using hair relaxers more frequently.
In other words, the more hair relaxer the women used, the higher their risk of uterine cancer. This study marked the first epidemiologic evidence showing a clear and definitive connection between hair relaxers and uterine cancer.
📌 Hair Relaxer Litigation Snapshot – August 2025
- Next Major Event: Science Day – January 2026
- First Trials: Expected 2027 (bellwether selection underway)
- Settlement Outlook: Realistic window beginning late 2026
- Current Phase: Expert discovery and case vetting
This is no longer a new mass tort. With discovery moving and over 11,000 cases filed, we are deep in the shaping phase. Plaintiffs’ firms are refining their strongest claims. Defense teams are watching the docket closely.
Hair Relaxer Can Cause Ovarian Cancer
Each year only 20,000 cases of ovarian cancer are diagnosed in the U.S., making it relatively rare. Unfortunately, ovarian cancer only has a 5-year survival rate of 47%. This is mostly because ovarian cancer has very few symptoms in its earlier phases and is usually not diagnosed until the cancer has already spread.
In 2021, a research article from NIH reported that the results of a major long-term study found an association between the use of chemical hair relaxers and higher rates of ovarian cancer. The study showed that women who regularly used hair relaxer (more than 4 times per year) displayed a 50% increased risk of ovarian cancer.
Are There Hair Relaxers That Do Not Cause Cancer?
There are a few hair relaxers that claim to be free from harmful endocrine-disrupting chemicals. However, it’s important to approach these claims with caution, as labeling may not always be transparent. Some brands that market themselves as safer alternatives or focus on more natural ingredients include:
- SheaMoisture: Known for its focus on natural and organic ingredients, SheaMoisture offers hair care products free from parabens, phthalates, and sulfates. While not specifically a relaxer brand, it provides alternatives for hair straightening and care without EDCs.
- Mielle Organics: This brand emphasizes natural ingredients and is marketed as a safer option for hair care. It doesn’t specifically produce chemical relaxers but offers hair care products designed for healthy, natural hair.
- Just for Me Natural Hair Milk: Although “Just for Me” chemical relaxers were found to contain EDCs, the brand also offers a line called “Natural Hair Milk” that focuses on natural ingredients. It’s important to differentiate between their regular relaxers and natural hair care lines.
- Design Essentials: This brand markets a natural and organic line free from harmful chemicals, though some of its relaxer products may still contain chemicals. It’s advisable to check individual product labels for specific ingredients.
It’s crucial to read ingredient labels carefully for any brand or product, as “natural” or “organic” branding doesn’t always mean free of all potentially harmful substances. But it is possible these are better alternatives to the usual suspects who are defendants in this litigation.
Hair Relaxer Cancer Lawsuit Settlement Amounts
What kind of settlement amounts might we see in the hair relaxer litigation? The answer still depends on how the science plays out in court, but this is no longer a brand-new mass tort.
With more than 11,000 lawsuits now pending and bellwether discovery underway, we are well into the active litigation phase. Plaintiffs’ lawyers and defense counsel have both had time to evaluate the strength of the cases, and the broad outlines of the litigation are starting to come into focus.
If the evidence linking chemical hair relaxers to uterine cancer holds up, we believe the average settlement for a strong case could be in the $300,000 range. Lower-tier claims may resolve for $150,000 or less, while the most serious cases—particularly those involving young women with permanent infertility—could exceed $1 million and possibly approach $1.75 million or more. These numbers are not guarantees, but they reflect informed thinking based on comparable reproductive injury lawsuits and the nature of the injuries alleged. If juries are persuaded by the science, these cases could have real value. For victims, understanding that potential range helps frame what is at stake.
Hair Relaxer Settlement Value Matrix
| Injury Type | Age of Plaintiff | Estimated Range | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Uterine Cancer | Under 35 | $250,000 – $1 million | Higher due to fertility loss and long-term impact |
| Uterine Cancer | Over 50 | $250,000 – $500,000 | Lower fertility impact but still serious harm |
| Endometrial Cancer | Any age | $200,000 – $450,000 | Less common but still tied to long-term chemical exposure |
| Fibroids with Hysterectomy | Under 40 | $90,000 – $150,000 | Permanent infertility matters, but value trails cancer cases |
| Fibroids without Surgery | Any age | $10,000 – $75,000 | Likely to settle in lower tiers due to less permanent harm |
Of course, these are just our hair relaxer settlement amount predictions. Every hair relaxer lawyer has a different prediction. We will know how it truly plays out until we get there. Also, do not forget these are settlement payout estimates not trial value. It would not be surprising to see a hair relaxer verdict in the tens of millions.
What Is the Statute of Limitations for Hair Relaxer Lawsuits?
Every state has a statute of limitations that puts a deadline on how long you can wait before filing a lawsuit. If you don’t file your case before your state’s statute of limitations expires, you will lose the right to file your lawsuit.
The statute of limitations on tort claims like hair relaxer lawsuits might be anywhere from 2-6 years, depending on what state you live in. (Check the Statute of Limitations in all 50 States.) Each state has a different time frame. If you are considering a hair relaxer lawsuit, the really important question is not how long the limitation period is, but when the statute of limitations period in your state begins to run.
Almost all states follow some version of what is known as the “discovery rule” for determining when the statute of limitations begins to run on an injury lawsuit. Under this rule, the applicable limitation period does not necessarily begin to run on the date of the plaintiff’s injury. Instead, the SOL period starts running when the plaintiff actually discovers (or reasonably should have discovered) that they have grounds for a lawsuit.
Here is how this rule would apply in a typical hair relaxer lawsuit situation. Let’s say you used chemical hair relaxers most of your adult life, and 7 years ago, you were diagnosed with uterine cancer. If your state has a 2-year statute of limitations, does that mean it is too late for you to file a hair relaxer lawsuit since your diagnosis was 7 years ago?
In most states, it would not be too late to file a hair relaxer lawsuit based on the discovery rule. When you were first diagnosed with uterine cancer 7 years ago, you would have had no reason to think that your cancer was somehow related to hair relaxers. The connection between uterine cancer and chemical hair relaxer products did not become public knowledge until October 2022, when findings from the NIH Sister Study were published. This means that in states that follow the discovery rule (which is most of them), the statute of limitations on hair relaxer lawsuits did not begin to run until October 2022 at the earliest.
Unfortunately, however, there are some states in which it might be too late to file your hair relaxer lawsuit. For example, if your state does not follow the discovery rule, then it means that the SOL period begins to run from the date of the injury (i.e., when you were diagnosed with uterine cancer). Certain states have something called a “statute of repose,” which puts a maximum time limit (usually 7 years or more) on bringing a lawsuit regardless of whether the discovery rule applies or not.
Contact Us About a Hair Relaxer Cancer Lawsuit
Our lawyers are currently seeking product liability cases alleging that chemicals in hair relaxer products caused uterine cancer. If you have a potential claim, our attorneys want to help you. If you were diagnosed with uterine cancer or another cancer after regularly using chemical hair relaxers, contact our law firm today for a free consultation at 800-553-8082 or get a free case evaluation online.