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
May 2, 2025 – MDL Passes 10,000 Mark
There are now 10,168 lawsuits filed in the hair relaxer MDL. That is a jump of over 200 new cases in just the past month. This is pretty mature litigation at this point but our law firm is still getting a lot of calls and victims are still filing new lawsuits.
The hair relaxer MDL has crossed the 10,000 mark, reaching 10,168 pending cases. That is up from 9,936 last month. Lawyers continue to file new cases at a steady clip.
April 27, 2025 – New Lawsuit in MDL
In the latest lawsuit filed Thursday in the Hair Relaxer MDL (MDL No. 3060), a woman from Illinois brought claims against L’Oréal USA, Inc., Avlon Industries, and several other manufacturers of chemical hair relaxer products. Filed in the Northern District of Illinois under docket number 1:25-cv-04528, the plaintiff alleges that her regular use of defendants’ hair relaxers caused her to develop cancer.
The plaintiff, an Illinois resident, alleges she purchased and applied the defendants’ products over a period of years without any warning about the risks posed by the endocrine-disrupting chemicals contained in them. Her complaint asserts that exposure to these toxic ingredients caused her to suffer severe, life-altering injuries, including cancer, which required extensive medical treatment and resulted in permanent physical and emotional harm.
Consistent with Case Management Order No. 2, the plaintiff incorporates the Master Long Form Complaint, and asserts claims for strict product liability, negligence, breach of warranty, fraudulent misrepresentation, and concealment. She seeks damages for physical injuries, medical expenses, lost earnings, pain and suffering, and loss of enjoyment of life.
April 15, 2025 – New Line of Defendants Being Investigated
Plaintiffs’ lawyers in the Hair Relaxer MDL secured a step forward in discovery against a “Second Wave” of corporate defendants. These companies—including John Paul Mitchell Systems, RNA Corporation, Bronner Brothers, Murray’s, Wella, and Advanced Beauty—were brought into the litigation after initial filings and now face court-ordered deadlines to produce key evidence.
Last week, Rowland formally adopted the discovery schedule negotiated by the parties. The order sets clear monthly deadlines, beginning April 30, 2025, and continuing through September 21, 2025, for these defendants to respond to interrogatories and document requests on topics including:
-
Internal communications about litigation and cancer risks
-
Post-market surveillance and regulatory activity
-
Manufacturing and supplier relationships
-
Targeted marketing strategies
-
Product testing and safety data
-
Sales and profit information
This ruling ensures that plaintiffs’ lawyers can proceed immediately with obtaining critical evidence from companies that sold these products to millions of consumers.
Meanwhile, the Court has directed an update at the April 24 status conference on two other defendants, Dudley Beauty Corp. and Roux Laboratories. Dudley has yet to be served with discovery despite a prior court order, and Roux is attempting to avoid its own responses by relying on documents produced by Revlon. Plaintiffs intend to pursue both issues aggressively.
With over 12,000 cases now centralized in the MDL, this discovery phase will be pivotal in proving what these companies knew about the risks of chemical hair relaxers—and when they knew it.
April 11, 2025 – Alabama Woman Files Lawsuit
In a new lawsuit filed yesterday, a woman from Birmingham, Alabama, sued L’Oréal and SoftSheen-Carson as part of the hair relaxer multidistrict litigation, alleging that prolonged use of the companies’ chemical hair relaxer products caused her to develop uterine cancer. Filed in the Northern District of Illinois, the case is part of MDL 3060, which, as you know, consolidates claims against manufacturers of hair relaxer products alleged to cause serious health conditions.
The plaintiff reports using chemical relaxers, including Dark and Lovely Healthy Gloss 5 Shea Moisture No Lye Relaxer and Dark and Lovely Triple Nourished Silkening Relaxer, from approximately 1971 until 2022. She was diagnosed with uterine cancer on or around April 13, 2023, and claims her injuries were caused by defective product design and the defendants’ failure to warn consumers about health risks.
April 1, 2025 – Fewer New Hair Relaxer Cases Filed, But Bellwether Trial Path Taking Shape
The MDL stayed flat at 9,788 cases in March, following a drop in February tied to dismissed claims. But don’t let the lack of new filings fool you—activity behind the scenes is ramping up. Plaintiffs and defendants are preparing to select 40 discovery pool cases for bellwether trials, and expert deadlines begin this fall. As discovery narrows in on strong uterine and ovarian cancer claims, the groundwork is being laid for trial pressure and, eventually, meaningful settlement talks.
March 30, 2025: New Rules to Get Hair Relaxer Suit Reinstated
Or Friday, the court released Case Management Order No. 16, which lays out the path for plaintiffs who want to reinstate their dismissed cases in the hair relaxer class action lawsuit. If a suit was dismissed without prejudice, the plaintiff must refile within the MDL to continue pursuing their claim. Those who still have the same lawyer can request reinstatement, but they must submit a complete Plaintiff Fact Sheet and required documents within ten days. Plaintiffs who switch lawyers must file a new case instead. The Court and Defendants receive regular updates to track reinstated cases. While Defendants will not object to timely filings, they can still challenge cases on legal grounds like statutes of limitations. If a plaintiff believes their case was wrongly dismissed, they must first try to negotiate with Defendants before asking the Court to step in.
For victims, this order provides a structured way to bring their cases back into the MDL, but it also demands strict compliance with deadlines. It ensures that cases are not lost in procedural limbo while holding plaintiffs accountable for timely filings. Although the requirements may feel burdensome, they are meant to keep the litigation on track and prevent unnecessary delays, ultimately helping those with valid claims move forward in the legal process.
March 24, 2025: NIH Motion to Compel and Settlement Mediator
Revlon, one of the embattled defendants in the hair relaxer MDL, has filed a motion seeking to compel the National Institutes of Health to produce various documents related to the study that initially linked chemicals in hair relaxer to cancer. NIH’s deadline for filing a response to the motion is April 10, 2025, after which the issue will likely be decided by the magistrate judge. Meanwhile, the parties have jointly agreed to the appointment of Ellen Reisman as special settlement mediator for the case.
March 5, 2025: MDL Contracts
The hair relaxer class action MDL decreased by 75 cases in February, marking the first monthly decline since the MDL began. The total number of pending cases now stands at 9,788.
February 4, 2025: 44 New Cases in MDL
After adding 170 cases over the past two months, only 44 new cases were filed in January, bringing the total number of pending cases to 9,863. This marks a significant drop from prior months. Why? Most victims have found lawyers by now. But we will keep getting new claims because of the long latency periods between chemical exposure and the development of hormone-related diseases like uterine and ovarian cancer.
January 3, 2025: MDL Adds 170 Cases
The Hair Relaxer class action MDL maintained steady growth, adding 170 new cases in December, consistent with the previous month. The total number of pending cases is now 9,819.
December 4, 2024: Plaintiff Fact Sheet Deficiencies
At a hearing last month, the MDL addressed the discovery process for Plaintiffs in the hair relaxer MDL who filed lawsuits by February 1, 2024. Defendants requested a deadline for reviewing Plaintiff Fact Sheets (PFS). The court later held a follow-up hearing a few weeks ago during which Plaintiffs’ leadership identified 1,100 plaintiffs who had submitted PFS by May 31, 2024 without receiving deficiency notifications.
Defendants disagreed and complained they had not reviewed the list in advance. Following additional analysis, the parties reduced this number to 779, and later to 565 after removing cases that were dismissed, substantially complete, non-cancer-related, or delinquent due to missing required authorizations.
The lawyers came up with an agreed list of 565 plaintiffs whose PFS submissions require review for deficiencies before the February 28, 2025 discovery deadline. Defendants committed to notifying 400 plaintiffs on this list of any deficiencies by December 20, 2024, or risk waiving their right to challenge these submissions.
The take-home message is that if you have a deficient PFS, get with our lawyer and get it fix or risk having your hair relaxer lawsuit dismissed.
December 2, 2024: 161 New Cases Added to MDL
The hair relaxer MDL added 161 new cases in November, down sharply from October’s 1,000+ cases. The total number of pending cases has reached 9,649.
November 1, 2024: MDL Adds 1,000 Cases in October
The hair relaxer MDL saw a substantial surge last month, with over 1,000 new lawsuits added—the highest monthly intake since the MDL’s inception. This influx brings the total pending cases to nearly 9,500.
This new influx of hair relaxer lawsuits puts new pressure on the defendants as the parties continue to prepare for the first bellwether trial next year.
October 15, 2024: How Hair Relaxer Lawsuits Are Different
The last few years of litigation have provided insight into the unique challenges of the hair relaxer lawsuits compared to other mass tort cases, such as talcum powder or glyphosate (Roundup) lawsuits.
These other cases, which also involve toxic chemical exposure, focused on well-known health risks like ovarian cancer and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. But the hair relaxer lawsuits introduce new complexities by addressing reproductive health conditions, including uterine and endometrial cancer, fibroids, and fertility issues. Plaintiffs in these cases must establish not only that relaxers contain harmful chemicals—like phthalates or formaldehyde-releasing agents—but also that these chemicals were absorbed through scalp exposure and caused long-term harm.
Another key difference lies in the consumer demographic. Hair relaxers have been marketed primarily to Black women, transforming these lawsuits from a typical product liability case into one that also raises questions of institutional negligence and discriminatory marketing practices.
This element introduces a social justice aspect to the litigation, which resonates without needing to be stated explicitly—jurors will understand the significance of companies profiting off unsafe products targeted toward a population that has long been mistreated. This additional layer adds both emotional weight and public sympathy to the lawsuits, making them distinct from other toxic product cases.
Our lawyers continue to believe that this litigation has enormous upside potential for plaintiffs in terms of settlement amounts and jury awards. Hair relaxer lawsuits combine the health risks of toxic exposure with the powerful narrative of systemic injustice, creating a compelling case for large payouts… and punitive damages.
The recent success of mass tort cases like talc and glyphosate shows that courts and juries are increasingly willing to hold corporations accountable for harm caused by negligent product design and insufficient warnings. If these cases follow a similar trajectory, plaintiffs may see significant settlements and verdicts, both compensating victims and forcing meaningful changes in the beauty industry.
October 1, 2024: MDL Sheds 98 Cases
In August, 200 new cases were added to the chemical hair relaxer class action MDL. However, in September, the MDL saw a decrease, with 98 cases removed, lowering the total number of pending cases to 8,393.
September 30, 2024: New Hair Relaxer Lawsuit
The lawsuit claims that the defendants’ products, including Dark and Lovely, Optimum Salon Haircare, and Africa’s Best, contained harmful chemicals that increased her risk of cancer. The complaint incorporates various causes of action from the Master Long Form Complaint in the MDL, including negligence, strict liability for design defect and failure to warn, breach of express and implied warranties, and statutory consumer protection violations. The plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages for her injuries and demands a jury trial.
September 26, 2024: When Will the Hair Relaxer Lawsuit Be Settled?
The first bellwether trial in the MDL is scheduled for November 3, 2025, with a second trial set for February 2, 2026. As we approach these dates, the pressure will mount, not just for them but for us, too. The weeks and months leading up to these trials are often when the parties feel the greatest pressure to avoid the risk and reach a settlement. Lawyers on both sides will be highly motivated to negotiate in order to avoid the uncertainty and potential losses associated with a full trial.
So…we do not think the defendants will let one of these cases go to trial without offering real settlement amounts to plaintiffs. That would make the most likely settlement new summer in 2025. (This assumes the trial date does not get postponed.)
September 21, 2024: Motion for Protective Order
One key defendant, Namasté Laboratories seeks a protective order to prevent the plaintiffs from taking a 30(b)(6) deposition regarding custodial files for former employees. Namasté argues that the custodial files in question no longer exist because the employees left years before the lawsuit began, and any further inquiry would be unduly burdensome. Namasté has offered affidavits verifying the non-existence of these files and explaining that they were deleted in the normal course of business before any legal obligation to preserve them arose. The company claims that plaintiffs’ demand for a deposition is unnecessary, as it would not reveal any additional relevant information beyond what the affidavits have already provided.
While Namasté insists that its affidavits should be sufficient to address plaintiffs’ concerns, the motion reads like an attempt to shield the company from further scrutiny. The plaintiffs are seeking a deposition to obtain specific details, such as when and how the files were deleted, information Namasté has not fully provided that I think we can all agree, is important. Namasté’s emphasis on the burdensome nature of the deposition, without fully addressing these gaps, raises questions about whether they are being transparent or simply trying to avoid the additional scrutiny that a deposition might bring.
Ultimately, while Namasté has provided affidavits, plaintiffs are still entitled to seek relevant and specific details, and it’s unclear why Namasté should not want to fully address the plaintiffs’ concerns in a deposition. The protective order may appear more as a “our client told us to file this motion” rather than a legitimate claim of undue burden.
September 17, 2024 – New Lawsuit Still Flowing
Hair relaxer lawyers continue to file new lawsuits. In a new claim filed in the MDL yesterday, a North Carolina woman has filed a new lawsuit against L’Oréal SoftSheen-Carson and Luster Products.
The plaintiff, who resides in Wilmington, North Carolina, alleges that her use of hair relaxer products manufactured by these companies caused her to develop endometrial cancer. She used the products, including L’Oréal’s Dark and Lovely and Luster’s Pink Oil Moisturizer No-Lye Relaxer, from 1971 until 2018.
The plaintiff asserts that the defendants were negligent in the design and marketing of the products. She also claim these manufacturers failing to warn women of the cancer risks that they knew or should have known were associated with prolonged use of the relaxers.
September 3, 2024 – Case Count
After several very slow months in terms of new cases, the hair relaxer MDL saw over 200 new cases added in August. That brings the total pending case count up to 8,489.
August 28, 2024 – Battles with Bankrupt Revlon Continues
Revlon’s responded to the motion we wrote about on August 26. The response argues that plaintiffs’ motion to compel completion of discovery is both unnecessary and premature. Revlon explains what it thinks is extensive efforts to address discovery requests and its ongoing cooperation with the plaintiffs.
Revlon blames plaintiffs’ attorneys’ insistence on using broad search terms resulting in the identification of a vast number of documents (potentially over a million pages). The company asserts that it has been transparent with the plaintiffs about the challenges and progress of the document review process and that the plaintiffs’ motion misrepresents Revlon’s willingness and efforts to comply with discovery demands.
Revlon further argues that the relief sought by the plaintiffs, which includes a court order to certify the completeness of document production, is inappropriate and would be excessively burdensome. How is that burdensome? The motion really does not say.
August 26, 2024 Update – Discovery Fights with Revlon
During a court meeting on July 11, 2024, the plaintiffs raised concerns about Revlon’s failure to adequately respond to document requests and questions they had sent in December 2023. Revlon claimed they needed to review about 900,000 pages of documents before fully responding and everyone was fine with that. The court ordered Revlon to start producing the documents gradually and complete the review by August 9, 2024.
But Revlon did not meet this deadline and admitted it did not comply with the court’s order without asking for an extension. Although Revlon did provide some additional documents and responses, the plaintiffs are dissatisfied with the pace of production and the lack of a clear timeline for completion so they asked last week for the court’s help.
The fear is that Revlon’s dragging their feet will slow down the entire legal process which in turns will slow down the path to settlement or the first trial. Victims’ lawyers have requested the court to order Revlon to finish reviewing and producing the documents by September 15, 2024, and to provide a certification that all responsive documents have been produced. The plaintiffs also suggested that if Revlon fails to comply, the court should consider imposing sanctions.
August 5, 2024 – New Case Count
In L’Oreal USA, Inc., et al. v. Burroughs, the Georgia Court of Appeals reviewed whether Georgia’s ten-year statute of repose barred plaintiff Kiara Burroughs’s products liability and negligence claims against L’Oreal and Strength of Nature (SON).
Burroughs filed the lawsuit alleging that chemical hair relaxers produced by the defendants, which she used from childhood until 2014, caused her to develop uterine fibroids in 2018. The defendants argued that since Burroughs’s claims were filed more than ten years after her initial use of the products, her claims were time-barred by the statute of repose.
Burroughs contended that each purchase of the hair relaxers within ten years of filing the lawsuit restarted the statute. The trial court initially sided with Burroughs, but the appellate court partially reversed this decision, stating that the statute of repose begins at the “first sale” of the product, not subsequent purchases. The case was remanded for further proceedings to consider the fraud claims and whether certain exceptions applied to the statute of repose.
The statute of repose in Georgia is particularly unjust in cases like Burroughs’s because it can eliminate a plaintiff’s right to seek redress for injuries caused by long-term exposure to harmful products, even before the harm is known or manifested. In Burroughs’s case, she only became aware of the connection between hair relaxers and uterine fibroids in 2022 when a scientific study was published, years after the statute of repose had already extinguished her right to bring certain claims. This outcome is inherently unfair because it disregards the fact that many product-related injuries, especially those involving chemical exposure, can take years to develop and be diagnosed.
It may well be this plaintiff can invoke other exception to the statute of repose in Georgia. But there is no question that there is a risk in some states with older hair relaxer claims that the statute of repose could bar some or all of plaintiffs’ claims.
August 2, 2024 – Unnecessary Defendant Dismissed
Although J. Strickland will no longer be a defendant, they have agreed to respond to existing discovery requests from the plaintiffs’ attorneys, which are not obtainable from other defendants in the Master Complaint. They will not object based on no longer being a defendant but retain the right to object on other grounds, such as relevancy or confidentiality, among others.
J. Strickland also commits to ensuring that any produced documents and information, including electronically stored information (ESI), will be certified as authentic, complying with federal evidence rules. Furthermore, J. Strickland will continue to fulfill its data preservation obligations as if they were still active parties to the litigation.
July 27, 2024 – Expanding Cases We Take
Our law firm is back to taking uterine fibroids cases, especially woman in childbearing years who had a hysterectomy.
June 6, 2024 – Duplicative Cases
A hair relaxer lawyer emailed a request to the court last month regarding two duplicative cases filed for the same plaintiff. The first case was initially filed in California and transferred to the MDL, while the second was filed directly into the MDL, naming additional Revlon entities. The court noted that service was completed for the second case but unclear for the first.
The judge directed the Clerk’s Office to file the Short Form Complaint from the second case into the first case. The plaintiff’s lawyer must file a status report indicating if the second case can be dismissed. The judge expressed frustration over the attorney’s use of email for requests and emphasized that all future requests must be filed as formal motions, with the defendant adequately copied.
June 3, 2024 – MDL Cuts 300 Cases
The hair relaxer class action lawsuit saw a decrease of nearly 300 pending cases over the past month. This decline is due to the plaintiffs’ decision to not pursue cases involving non-cancer injuries. The total number of pending cases now stands at 8,170.
May 30, 2024 – New Discovery Dispute
The latest discovery dispute between hair relaxer lawyers centers around the interpretation and application of CMO #9.
Plaintiffs’ attorneys are frustrated because, contrary to the explicit language of CMO 9, they continue to receive new or amended Deficiency Letters from the defendants in response to amended Plaintiff Fact Sheets (PFS). According to CMO 9, once a plaintiff responds to a Deficiency Letter, the Designated Defendant is not permitted to issue additional Deficiency Letters identifying new deficiencies unless the case is part of the bellwether selection pool.
Defendants, however, are conflating the existence of any deficiency with whether a PFS is “substantially complete,” resulting in multiple rounds of deficiency notices. Plaintiffs argue this practice is contrary to the negotiated terms of CMO 9, which intended to avoid repetitive and nit-picking deficiency notices. The plaintiffs assert that the defendants’ actions are aimed at ensuring many plaintiffs are not deemed “substantially complete” for bellwether selection and to generate grounds for dismissal, despite substantial compliance with CMO 9.
May 16, 2024 – Dismissal of Certain Cancer Cases Requested
Plaintiffs’ lawyers are asking the court for permission to dismiss certain cancer-related cases without prejudice, meaning the cases can be refiled later. These cases involve plaintiffs who initially believed they had ovarian, uterine, or endometrial cancer but later found out they did not have these specific cancers.
Many hair relaxer lawsuits were filed quickly because the rules of the Revlon bankruptcy required victims to file a lawsuit or lose their ability to sue Revlon. So attorneys put cases into suit without having all necessary medical records to confirm their cancer diagnoses. As a result, they now seek to dismiss their cases without prejudice to avoid being permanently barred from refiling if they develop the covered cancers in the future.
May 6, 2024 – Battle Over Special Master Appointment
The battle over Maura Grossman as special master is burning up a lot of trees. On Friday, the court order defendants to supplement its response to Professor Grossman’s declaration that there is no conflict. That response is due today.
Notably, the Joint Statement currently uses the term “Defendants’ counsel” to describe the attorney who has recently engaged in discussions with Professor Grossman regarding TAR-related issues in another lawsuit, representing an entity not involved in this litigation. In the supplemental document, the defendants must name names, as they say. The court wants defense counsel providing the attorney’s name, their law firm, and the defendants they represent in this current litigation.
Ironically, hair relaxer lawsuits will likely not be won by what we find in defendants’ documents but what we do not find. Plaintiffs’ argument that will win at trial will not be some smoking gun document as much as the fact that nothing was done in the face of evidence that hair relaxers cause cancer.
March 8, 2024 -L’Oréal Loses Discovery Motion
Plaintiffs initially filed a motion to compel discovery from various Defendants’ foreign affiliates, including L’Oréal S.A. The Court granted the motion with regard to L’Oréal S.A., citing the close corporate relationship between the two entities, although certain categories of documents were excluded.
L’Oréal argued for reconsideration based on factual inaccuracies and the legal and logistical challenges of compelling discovery from a French company. The court did not buy any of it.
First, L’Oréal disputed certain factual allegations cited by the court regarding the corporate relationship between L’Oréal USA and L’Oréal S.A. But the judge found that most of L’Oréal’s arguments are interpretations of facts rather than factual contradictions.
L’Oréal also argued that producing discovery outside of Hague Convention procedures could violate the French blocking statute. However, L’Oréal has not provided specific details on how the court’s discovery order would undermine French interests. The MDL judge did grant L’Oréal USA an extension to coordinate with L’Oréal S.A. to address logistical concerns.
Are their juicy documents L’Oréal is holding back on what it knew about hair relaxers and cancer? It is hard to say. They could be hoping to hide documents. But also could be it is just being reflexively oppositional which many corporate defendants are in mass tort lawsuits like this.
March 1, 2024 – MDL Growth Slower, But Steady
There were 117 new cases added to the hair relaxer class action MDL over the last month, bringing the current number of pending cases up to 8,334. This is certainly a far cry from last summer when the MDL was averaging 2,500 new cases a month.
February 19, 2024 – Battle of Documents
Lawsuits like the hair relaxer litigation are rarely won with a Perry Mason moment at trial. They are more typically won in the trenches getting the documents necessary to prove your case.
Hair relaxer lawyers continue to battle over the production of documents. A hearing was held by Judge Sheila M. Finnegan to discuss the idea of hiring a Special Master with expertise in Electronic Stored Information (ESI), based on what both sides had previously reported.
Judge Finnegan did not agree with the plaintiffs’ suggestion to hire two Special Masters for different ESI aspects, nor with the defendants’ view that no Special Master was needed. The judge asked both sides to talk it over and try to agree on someone who knows a lot about ESI and has experience as a Special Master.
They have until tomorrow to report back if they find someone they all agree on.
January 8, 2024 Update – Bellwether Trials Scheduled
The initial bellwether trial is scheduled for November 3, 2025, with a second trial set for February 2, 2026. While these trial dates may seem distant -because they are – this is how it works in complex MDL class action lawsuits. If you find this frustrating, we get it. Our lawyers find it frustrating, too.
But as far off as it is, scheduling of bellwether trials is a key step in the MDL process. It puts real pressure on the defendants to settle as that trial date approaches. Hopefully, reasonable settlement payouts will be offered to victims long before these trial dates come to pass. If not, these bellwether trials are representative cases that are tried first to provide both parties with critical insights into how juries might respond to the evidence and arguments. Big verdicts typically equate to larger settlement amounts. Because the outcomes of these trials can heavily influence negotiations for potential settlements for the rest of the cases within the MDL.
November 28, 2023 Update – 11% Common Benefit Fund
Plaintiffs’ lawyers in the hair relaxer MDL are asking the court to order an 11% holdback of compensation plaintiffs’ receive for their work in the case. It is a big number.
November 21, 2023 Update – MDL Status Conference
On Friday, Judge Mary M. Rowland conducted a status conference for the hair relaxer MDL class action lawsuit in Illinois. This is what came out of the
1. The court requested the parties to agree on a new briefing schedule for a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, to be submitted by November 28, 2023.
2. There’s ongoing disagreement regarding the scheduling of Science Day, with parties required to submit their positions in cross briefs by December 6, 2023.
3. The parties are working on a Case Management Order (CMO) related to the Plaintiffs’ Fact Sheets and Records Authorizations and will inform the court upon completion.
4. Defendants updated on similar lawsuits in state courts, not seeking any specific action from the court.
5. Regarding document production for products sold outside the U.S., cross-briefs are due by December 6, 2023, and Revlon must clarify its discovery position by November 27, 2023.
6. Revlon is set to produce documents in response to two specific Requests for Production by December 15, 2023. Avalon is also required to provide a complete ingredient list in response to Plaintiffs’ Interrogatory 6 by the same date.
7. The court referred ESI discovery and related disputes to Magistrate Judge Finnegan, without ordering the defendants to disclose all systems used during the relevant period.
November 17, 2023 Update – MDL Grows to 7,967 Cases
There are now almost 8,000 pending cases in the hair relaxer class action MDL. 2,000 more new cases were added to the MDL over the last month. This litigation has averaged around 500 new cases per week since the end of August. Back in February there were just 21 cases.
November 14, 2023 Update – Judge Rejects Motion to Dismiss
As predicted, Judge Mary Rowland has upheld the majority of claims in the class action lawsuit against major hair relaxer manufacturers. The MDL judge’s ruling pushed back on the defendants’ weak preemption argument, finding that federal law does not invalidate the plaintiffs’ state law claims, particularly those alleging negligence and product liability. While the court dismissed the plaintiffs’ fraud claims for failing to meet Rule 9(b)’s specificity requirements, it allowed claims of unfair conduct to proceed and, more importantly to the settlement value of these lawsuits, punitive damages are still in the case. Warranty claims under state law and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act also met the standards for continuation.
An expected win can still be big win and we are full steam ahead in this litigation.
November 1, 2023 Update – 11% Sought for Plaintiff Benefit Fund
Leadership in the hair relaxer lawsuits wants a sum equivalent to 11% of the gross settlement or verdict in every hair relaxer case. From this holdback, 8% would be allocated to compensate for common benefit work, while the remaining 3% would be designated for the reimbursement of common benefit expenses.
Setting aside the issue of whether this is too much of an ask, keep in mind that this has nothing to do with how much compensation you receive for your hair relaxer cancer lawsuit. This is about how much money the lawyers in leadership take from your lawyer’s fee.
October 19, 2023 Update – FDA Proposes New Rule for Hair Relaxer
As thousands of new hair relaxer cancer lawsuits continue to get filed, the FDA is now proposing a new regulation that would ban the use of formaldehyde in all hair relaxer products. Formaldehyde has long been a common ingredient used in many hair relaxer products. It is a chemical that is known to be toxic and has been linked to certain types of cancer, including leukemia. However, formaldehyde is not one of the chemicals in hair relaxer that has been linked to ovarian or uterine cancer.
October 9, 2023 Update – Plaintiffs Win First Discovery Battle
At the MDL status hearing last week, Judge Rowland weighed in on several discovery disputes between the parties. For the most part, she ruled in favor of the plaintiffs by, among other things, requiring the defendants to produce documents even if they were not in their physical possession, and overruling the defense objection to producing patent related materials. The only issue resolved in favor of the defendants was the plaintiffs’ request for litigation hold letters. Judge Rowland has given the defendants a deadline of November 23, 2023 for producing the contested documents.
October 2, 2023 Update – Discovery Dispute Emerging
As the hair relaxer class action continues to explode with new cases, a major early discovery battle appears to be developing between the plaintiffs and the defendants. Last week, all of the hair relaxer defendants jointly submitted a brief to the MDL Judge detailing various discovery disputes and issues that have arisen. The joint submission details various complaints that the defense has with the discovery requests propounded by the plaintiffs. In short, the defendants are complaining that the plaintiffs are asking for everything under the sun. The issues will be addressed at the MDL status conference set for today.
September 27, 2023 Update – New Order Aimed at Managing Explosive Growth in MDL
Judge Rowland recently issued Case Management Order No. 9 – Service of and Responses to Short Form Complaints (CMO 9). CMO 9 sets for the detailed procedural rules for the filing of Short Form Complaints by new plaintiffs and the process for responding to the SFCs. The order is part of Judge Rowland’s effort to manage an MDL that has started to explode in size over the last few weeks.
September 18, 2023 Update – 2,000 New Cases Added to MDL in Last 3 Months
The hair relaxer class action MDL has been the fastest growing mass tort over the last few months. Back in June, there were only 149 pending cases in the hair relaxer MDL. As of this week, the number of pending hair relaxer lawsuits has swelled to 2,244. That is a growth rate of around 700 new cases per month. If this pace continues, and we fully expect that it will, we will pass 4,000 cases by the end of the year and could surpass 10,000 cases before the end of 2024. How big will this MDL get? We think it could end up being comparable in size to the talcum powder MDL, which currently has 47,000 pending cases.
September 1, 2023 Update: – FAQs & New Defense Counsel
The court has helpfully provided answers to frequently asked questions about filing a hair relaxer lawsuit in MDL 23-cv-00818. One of the primary defendants in the hair relaxer class action lawsuit, Dabur International (parent company of Namaste Laboratories) has changed defense counsel this week. Dabur has replaced its defense team from the firm of Kirkland & Ellis LLC (the lead defense firm in the 3M earplug litigation) and replaced them with a new team of lawyers from firm of Baker & McKenzie LLP.
August 17, 2023 Update – Master Complaint
There is now a Master Complaint in the MDL that all parties suing these defendants can incorporate by reference in their lawsuits.
August 4, 2023 – Short Form Complaint Approved
Yesterday, Judge Rowland entered an Order adopting an official Short Form Complaint (SFC) for all future hair relaxer plaintiffs. Going forward, new hair relaxer cancer lawsuits can be filed directly in the class action MDL. and plaintiffs can utilize the new SFC instead of preparing a custom complaint. This will help streamline the process and should facilitate an increase in new case filings.
June 9, 2023 – Delay Tactics
The defendants in the hair relaxer MDL are pushing for a bifurcated discovery process that would limit the initial discovery phase to the issue of general causation (i.e., evidence linking hair relaxer to cancer). Discovery on other issues would only begin after that initial causation phase is completed. This is a common tactic by defendants in product liability cases like this. The plaintiffs have already voiced very strong objections to the proposal, claiming – with good reason – that it will cause major delays.
June 1, 2023 – Hair Relaxers and Fertility
A study led by the Boston University School of Public Health has demonstrated a link between the usage of chemical hair straighteners and declines in fertility. The research, featured in the American Journal of Epidemiology, highlights a racial discrepancy, indicating that Black, Hispanic, and mixed-race individuals are more likely to use these products and potentially be exposed to their harmful chemicals. The research also discovered that these groups began using relaxers earlier, more frequently, and for longer periods, correlating with a drop in pregnancy chances.
Is anyone surprised by this? Of course not. This study aligns with everything else on the health risks from exposure to toxic chemicals in beauty products, such as phthalates, phenols, and parabens, which can interfere with the endocrine system and impact fertility.
May 23, 2023 – Master Complaint in MDL
A Master Complaint has been submitted in federal court by the plaintiffs in the ongoing hair relaxer lawsuits. What is a Master Complaint in an MDL class action lawsuit? It is a consolidated document that outlines the common allegations raised in multiple individual lawsuits. These lawsuits are usually filed against a common group of defendants across different jurisdictions but involve similar issues.
The primary purpose of a Master Complaint is to streamline the litigation process by combining all common allegations and evidence into a single document. This reduces duplication of effort, promotes judicial efficiency, and ensures consistent rulings across similar cases. After the Master Complaint is filed, each plaintiff will file a shorter, individual complaint (often referred to as a Short-Form Complaint) that references the Master Complaint and outlines the specific allegations and damages related to their individual case. This legal document encapsulates all the common claims brought forward by women diagnosed with uterine cancer, ovarian cancer, and other conditions due to consistent exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals in chemical hair straighteners.
May 11, 2023 – Procedure of Filing in MDL Class Action
The MDL judge issued an order to address confusion about how to direct file new cases related to this hair relaxer class action lawsuit.
If you’re filing a new case, it must be filed separately in the Northern District of Illinois. Note the connection to the MDL on the civil cover sheet, and your case will get its own number. You must mention Judge Mary Rowland and the master docket number 23 CV 0818 on the cover sheet. Then just make sure you format and requirements listed in the Direct Filing Order and Case Management Order No. 2.
May 1, 2023 – New Hair Relaxer Lawsuits
New Hair relaxer lawsuits continue to get directly filed in the Northern District of Illinois, which houses all of the class action lawsuits. A new suit filed Friday by a Louisiana woman alleges that her uterine cancer and endometriosis were caused by her regular and prolonged exposure to phthalates and other endocrine-disrupting chemicals in hair products manufactured by L’Oreal and other defendants.
April 21, 2023 – Push to Ban Hair Relaxers Begins in Europe
A coalition of politicians and female activist groups in the UK are now calling for L’Oreal and other cosmetic companies to take all their hair relaxer products off the market because of the new research linking them to cancer. The British feminist organization Level Up published an open letter urging big cosmetic companies to remove harmful chemicals from hair relaxers or pull them from the shelves. The letter was signed by a collection of very prominent UK politicians, including several top MPs.
We could see a similar push in the U.S. very soon.
April 19, 2023 – Class Action Status Conference
Judge Rowland held a status conference with lawyers for both sides in the hair relaxer class action MDL yesterday. The primary topic of discussion was how to approach the admissibility issues regarding causation. The defendants want Judge Rowland to adopt a two-step process in which general causation will be addressed first before evaluating the evidence linking hair relaxer products to specific cancers (e.g., uterine cancer, ovarian cancer, etc.). The plaintiffs contend this approach will cause undue delay and favor a combined format. The judge asked the parties to try to come to an agreement before the court rules.
April 18, 2023 – More Case Count
Over the last month, 24 new cases were transferred into the hair relaxer class action MDL. That increases the total number of pending lawsuits in the MDL to 102. The monthly volume of new cases in this litigation will continue to increase as we move forward and we could quickly start to see 100-200 new cases a month by the end of this summer.
April 6, 2023 – Case Count
New hair relaxer lawsuits filed in federal courts continue to be filed. There are over 200 pending hair relaxer cases across the country, most of which have already been transferred into the MDL. Thirty-eight new hair relaxer cancer lawsuits were filed in the second half of March alone. The volume of new filings will also increase significantly following the recent order allowing new cases to be filed directly in the hair relaxer class action MDL.
March 31, 2023 – Direct Filing Lawsuits in Class Action
This is a new order from the MDL in Chicago in the chemical hair straightener class action lawsuit. This order allows plaintiffs to file directly in the MDL instead of filing in their home state and waiting for the court to transfer the claim. The lawsuit has to use a specific title and say where the case otherwise would have been filed. After pretrial proceedings and bellwether trials, the individual claims will be returned to the original court if there is no global hair relaxer settlement.
March 27, 2023 – Revlon
Revlon is a major cosmetic company that manufactures and sells several brands of chemical hair relaxer products. The only reason that Revlon has not been pulled into the hair relaxer class action lawsuit as a defendant is that Revlon Inc. filed bankruptcy shortly before the hair relaxer litigation got started. As a result, the automatic bankruptcy stay has protected Revlon from being sued. This does not mean, however, that Revlon will escape liability.
Earlier this month, the Plaintiffs Steering Committee (PSC) in the hair relaxer MDL provided Judge Rowland with a detailed update on the Revlon bankruptcy. The PSC has filed a claim in the bankruptcy proceeding for all potential hair relaxer plaintiffs that used Revlon products. That claim must now be factored into the Revlon bankruptcy plan to ensure that potential plaintiffs against Revlon are compensated.
March 16, 2023 – MDL Class Action Adds 50 New Cases
Fifty-seven new hair relaxer cancer lawsuits were transferred into the new class action MDL over the last 30 days. That brings the total number of pending cases in the MDL up from 21 last month to 78. We expect this trend to continue and the volume of new cases to get even bigger as the year progresses. We could easily see this MDL averaging 200 new cases per month by the end of the summer.
March 11, 2023 – What Came Out of the Status Conference
- Pleadings/Amending Complaints: Parties will meet and confer to file a consolidated hair relaxer complaint or a form that a unified and efficient hair relaxer lawsuit can take. The parties propose a deadline for filing proposals and meeting and conferring on the issue.
- Direct Filing Order: The PLC will provide a draft Direct Filing Order to Defendants before the close of business on March 13, 2023. The parties will submit an agreed-to proposed order, or, if there is no agreement, they will submit their respective proposals to the court on or before March 31, 2023.
- General Causation: Unsurprisingly, the hair relaxer lawyers disagree about the issue of bifurcation and conducting general causation first. Parties propose a deadline for submitting a briefing to the court on the issue.
- The parties agree to meet and confer on federal and state court coordination, how to deal with probate matters, a preservation order, a plan for the discovery of electronically stored information, and a protection order.
March 1, 2023 – First Status Conference in Class Action MDL
Judge Mary Rowland will hold the first status conference tomorrow with all parties in the new hair relaxer class action MDL. The primary agenda item will be the protocol for forming plaintiffs’ counsel leadership committees tasked with making collective decisions on behalf of all the plaintiffs in the MDL. In her initial Case Management Order, Judge Rowland indicated that there will be a single steering committee. She will also name lead counsel (responsible for handling the bellwether trials) and liaison counsel.
February 27, 2023 – Class Action Lawsuit Update
Last week we saw the highest weekly volume of new hair relaxer product liability lawsuits filed in federal courts, with 24 new cases. Fourteen new cases were filed on Thursday, and the other ten were filed on Friday. All but three of the new cases were filed in the Northern District of Illinois, which is the venue for the hair relaxer MDL.
These updates of a few dozen hair relaxer lawsuits being filed will seem silly in hindsight if our prediction of over 100,000 claims in the MDL class action holds up.
February 7, 2023 – More on New MDL
To follow up on the late update yesterday, the JPML agreed to centralize all hair relaxer lawsuits in federal courts into a new class action MDL. The new hair relaxer class action litigation has been assigned to Judge Mary Rowland in the Northern District of Illinois in Chicago. Judge Rowland spent several years as a Magistrate Judge in Chicago before being elevated to the federal bench in 2019 with strong bipartisan support. The new MDL starts with around 60 cases pending in federal courts nationwide.
February 6, 2023 – WE HAVE AN HAIR RELAXER CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT!
The hair straightener class action lawsuit was approved by the JPML Panel today. All federal hair relaxer lawsuits with be housed in Illinois.
We will have more on this tomorrow.
February 5, 2023 – EPA Focuses on Hair Relaxer Chemicals
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will add certain phthalates, such as DINP, to its list of harmful toxic chemicals subject to increased regulations and reporting requirements. This is significant because DINP and other phthalates are chemicals in hair relaxer products believed to disrupt the hormone system and increase the risk of uterine and ovarian cancer. The EPA’s decision to regulate these chemicals is based on evidence of their link to cancer.
February 1, 2023 – More Hair Straightener Lawsuits
More proof supports consolidated litigation as we wait for the MDL Panel to rule on the class action. In the last ten days, seven new hair relaxer product liability lawsuits have been filed in federal courts. The cases were filed in five different federal districts in Maryland, Washington, California, Missouri, and Illinois. In January, 23 hair relaxer lawsuits were filed in federal courts.
A ruling from the JPML centralizing the hair relaxer cases into a new class action MDL is expected sometime this week.
January 27, 2023 – Class Action Hearing Today
The MDL hearing to determine if there will be a hair relaxer class action lawsuit is today in Miami. The MDL Panel that decides these things will likely rule sometime in February. We have said before and will repeat it today: it is hard to imagine a scenario where an MDL is not granted in this litigation.
January 20, 2023 – More Suits Filed
Two more hair relaxer lawsuits were filed in federal courts yesterday. The first was filed in the Northern District of Illinois (the 10th hair relaxer case now pending in that district), and the second was filed in the Western District of Washington (the first in that district). The pace of new hair relaxer lawsuits has increased dramatically since the start of the new, with six new cases just in the last week. This litigation will explode.
January 17, 2023 – Hair Relaxer Litigation Update
The issue of whether to consolidate the hair relaxer lawsuits into a class action MDL will be taken up by the JPML later this month. The plaintiffs recently filed a response to the defendants’ briefs opposing the MDL.
The response correctly rebuts the defense argument that consolidation is inappropriate because the hair relaxer lawsuits involve too many defendants. The response points out the obvious: the JPML regularly consolidates similar cases involving numerous defendants and products. The response also makes another pitch for why the MDL should be assigned to the Northern District of Illinois.
January 12, 2023 – Hair Straightener Lawsuits in 2023
Seven new hair relaxer product liability lawsuits have been filed in federal courts since the start of 2023. Four were filed in the Western District of Missouri, and the others were filed in the Northern District of Ohio, the Eastern District of Michigan, and the Eastern District of Louisiana. Uterine cancer was the primary injury alleged by five of the plaintiffs. The injuries alleged in the other two cases were ovarian cancer and uterine fibroids.
Does this mean that most hair relaxer lawsuits involve uterine cancer? No. Uterine cancer lawsuits make up about 15% of law firm’s cases. Most of our chemical hair relaxer cases are cancer claims. But there is universal consensus that uterine cancer lawsuits have the strongest supporting science (the Sister Study we discuss below) and uterine cancer is obviously an awful consequence of using hair relaxers. So lawyers are filing uterine cancer lawsuits first because the early verdicts will impact victims’ settlement compensation.
January 4, 2023 – New Hair Relaxer Suit Filed in Missouri
A new hair relaxer causing uterine cancer lawsuit was filed yesterday in Missouri against:
- L’Oréal USA, Inc. (and L’Oréal USA Products, Inc.)
- SoftSheen-Carson LLC
- Strength of Nature Global, LLC (both Motions and Just for Me)
- Namaste Laboratories, LLC
The lawsuit blames these defendants’ hair care products because the chemicals in their hair straighteners led to her regular and prolonged (and unknown) exposure to phthalates and other endocrine-disrupting chemicals (“EDCs”). The plaintiff worked in a hair salon for a time. She was diagnosed with endometrial carcinoma just a few months ago in September 2022.
January 2, 2023 – Hair Relaxer Class Action Reply Motion
The issue of whether to consolidate the hair relaxer lawsuits into a class action MDL will be taken up by the JPML later this month. The plaintiffs recently filed a reply to the defendant’s brief in opposition to the MDL.
The response correctly rebuts the defense argument that consolidation is inappropriate because the hair relaxer lawsuits involve too many defendants. The response points out that the JPML regularly consolidates similar cases involving numerous defendants and products. The response also makes another pitch for why the MDL should be assigned to the Northern District of Illinois.
December 26, 2022 – More Hair Relaxer Suits Filed
At least five more hair relaxer lawsuits were filed in federal courts since the start of December. One of the hair straightener cases was filed in the Southern District of Ohio. The other lawsuits were filed in the Northern District of Illinois. Three of these chemical hair straightener lawsuits allege uterine cancer. The other two are uterine fibroids lawsuits.
There are now at least 15 hair relaxer personal injury cases and three hair relaxer consumer class action cases pending. The JPML will decide to consolidate these cases into a new hair relaxer class action lawsuit next month.
December 20, 2022 – Hearing Set on Hair Relaxer Class Action Request
The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) has scheduled a hearing for January 26, 2023, on the motion to consolidate all hair relaxer lawsuits in federal courts into a new class action MDL. L’Oreal and the other defendants strongly oppose MDL consolidation and will voice those objections at the hearing. There are already 15 hair relaxer lawsuits pending in federal courts and many more are expected, so the JPML will probably create an MDL. The primary question is where the MDL will be located.
December 14, 2022 – Defendants Oppose Hair Relaxer Class Action Lawsuit
L’Oréal and its subsidiaries asked a panel of federal judges to reject a consolidated MDL hair relaxer lawsuit, arguing that a class action would “breed inefficiency” because the hair straightener lawsuits share little in common.
Really? Over a hundred women with uterine cancer, fibroids, endometriosis, endometrial cancer, or ovarian cancer contact our law firm daily. Their stories are amazingly similar.
L’Oréal can fight this. But a hair relaxer class action is inevitable.
November 26, 2022 – Medical Monitoring Hair Relaxer Class Action Lawsuit
Last week, a new type of class action hair relaxer lawsuit was filed which seeks to force cosmetic companies to pay for a medical monitoring program for women who may be at risk from the harms of chemical hair relaxers.
The new medical monitoring lawsuit was filed last week in federal court in Michigan. A medical monitoring lawsuit is a legal action where individuals seek to receive regular medical exams or tests for potential health problems due to exposure to harmful substances, even if they do not currently have any symptoms. The plaintiffs in this litigation cite new research linking hair relaxer use to uterine cancer and other health conditions as grounds for requiring defendants like LÓreal to pay for a program that will monitor the long-term health of members of the plaintiff class.
This new hair relaxer case comes on the heels of the recent motion to consolidate the hair relaxer cancer cases into a new class action MDL. Our law firm is not involved in the medical monitoring suit. Our focus is on victims who have suffered significant injuries and death from hair relaxers.
November 18, 2022 – Class Action Sought
On Tuesday, lawyers representing a group of plaintiffs who have recently filed hair relaxer cancer lawsuits filed a motion with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) requesting consolidation of the hair relaxer lawsuits into a new, class action MDL. This litigation is going to be big.
The motion notes that there are nine hair relaxer cases involving 13 individual plaintiffs pending in four different federal district courts. All of the cases allege that hair relaxer products caused uterine cancer. The motion requests that the MDL be assigned to Judge Mary Rowland in the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago).
The defendants named in the motion include L’Oreal USA, Inc. and a handful of smaller, non-public companies. The defendants may roll over and agree to the MDL class action. It is inevitable. But their lawyers will probably request an alternative venue other than Chicago, Illinois, that they view as more favorable.
Hair Relaxers Contain Harmful Chemicals
A hair relaxer is a product used primarily by African American women to make their hair lay flat and straighten. These products use a strong combination of chemicals that attack the hair’s protein structure, causing it to flatten and lay down.
Almost all hair relaxers contain chemicals known as phthalates. Phthalates are commonly referred to as “plasticizers” because they are chemicals that are durable to certain types of pliable plastics. Phthalates are widely used in various cosmetic products, including chemical hair relaxers. Phthalatroll overland so endocrine-disrupting chemicals (“EDCs”). EDCs are types of chemicals that impact and disrupt the endocrine system and interfere with hormone receptors.
Hair relaxers contain a phthalate chemical called Di-2- ethyl hexyl phthalate (“DEHP”). DEHP is a synthetic chemical that is not found naturally in the environment. It is biologically toxic. DEHP is considered a probable human carcinogen and it is known to cause significant adverse-health effects including developmental abnormalities and reproductive dysfunction and infertility.
If you are regularly using a product that most likely can cause cancer, isn’t that something consumers should be told? Shouldn’t it at least be listed on the ingredients of the product? You are seeing so many hair relaxer lawsuit television commercials because the negligence seems so obvious and the injuries to these women are very serious.
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 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 No Cause Cancer?
There are a few hair relaxers that claim to be free from harmful endocrine-disrupting chemicals, although 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 Lawsuits
Just a few weeks after the publication of the study linking chemical hair relaxers to uterine cancer, a product liability lawsuit was filed against several cosmetic companies alleging that their hair relaxers caused uterine cancer. The lawsuit (Mitchell v. L’Oreal, et al. – 1:22-cv-5815) was filed in federal court in Chicago. The plaintiff, Jenny Mitchell, is a Missouri resident who used chemical hair relaxers her entire life.
The lawsuit alleges that Mitchell started using hair relaxers when she was 10 years old. Like many black women in America, Mitchell used hair relaxer products every 6-8 weeks for the next 18 years. In 2018, when she was just 28 years old, Mitchell was diagnosed with uterine cancer.
The hair relaxer lawsuit filed by Jenny Mitchell is the first of what could potentially be thousands of new product liability lawsuits filed against cosmetic companies that manufacture chemical hair relaxers. These lawsuits will allege that the manufacturers knew, or should have known, that the chemicals in their products could increase the risk of uterine cancer.
Let’s point out the obvious. It is way too early to say with any degree of certainty how much hair relaxer uterine cancer lawsuits could be worth at trial or in a settlement. So you should be skeptical of any lawyer making settlement amount predictions this early in the game. The first hair relaxer cancer lawsuits are just now getting filed. The scientific evidence on causation has not been tested in court.
So why provide a hair relaxer settlement payout estimate? Victims should know where lawyers’ heads are in terms of what a hair relaxer case is worth because knowing what the upside might be could inform their decision to move forward with bringing a lawsuit. We also think our readers are sophisticated enough to know that this is just an educated guess as to the settlement value of a hair relaxer lawsuit and these predictions could be way off even if the methodology behind the predictions is sound.
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 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 relaxer. The connection between uterine cancer and chemical hair relaxer products did not become public knowledge until October 2022 were 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 other 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.