Hair Relaxer Lawsuit

Women are filing hair relaxer cancer lawsuits because they allege the products exposed them to chemicals. They say these chemicals may have contributed to their risk of cancer. They want companies to:

• Be held accountable for the harms they allege, and
• To better warn about the potential product risks.

How Chemical Hair Relaxers May Cause Cancer

Some chemical hair relaxers contain strong chemical ingredients. These ingredients can sometimes include formaldehyde, parabens, and phthalates. When the scalp is burned or irritated, these chemicals can possibly get into the body. The more someone uses these products, the more exposure they may have.

Many relaxers also contain EDCs. That stands for endocrine-disrupting chemicals. These chemicals can confuse the body’s hormones. They may block or change how estrogen and progesterone work. This may contribute to abnormal cell growth problems in the uterus and other areas.

Some studies have observed a correlation between frequent relaxer use and higher cancer rates. In the context of one of the studies, “frequent use” meant four or more times a year. Be advised that these studies do not prove causation.

In one study, people who used relaxers often were twice as likely to get uterine cancer.

Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals (EDCs) and Hormonal Effects

EDCs are chemicals that can interfere with hormone signals in the human body. Some hair relaxer products may contain these EDCs, such as formaldehyde, DEHP, and parabens.

An issue with these chemicals is that they can copy or block natural hormones. This may affect estrogen or other hormone activity. When this happens, cells in the uterus or ovaries may end up growing in unusual ways.

In 2024, the EPA reported that formaldehyde can pose an “unreasonable risk to human health” in certain workplace and industrial settings. Lawsuits point to these chemicals as a key concern in the safety of hair relaxer products.

Disproportionate Impact on Black and Brown Women

An NIH study showed that most hair relaxer users were Black women, at about 60 percent.

The lawsuit alleges that hair relaxer ads were shaped by eurocentric beauty standards in the United States. The Master Complaint cites a L’Oréal ad that used the phrase “L’Oréal knows how beautiful Black hair can be.” People suing allege this wording suggested natural Black hair was less acceptable without straightening.

Additionally, certain hair relaxer products like Just For Me were marketed for children and used by many young girls. Some reports show relaxer use was common across generations.

As adults, many Black women reported dealing with hair bias at work. According to social research, some Black women were told that their natural hair looked “unkempt” or “unfit”.

Surveys reflected high levels of reported hair-based discrimination:

• A 2021 study reported that 66 percent of Black and Brown girls in White-majority settings reported hair discrimination.
• Across all schools, 45 percent of girls of color said they faced the same problem.
• Nearly half of Black mothers surveyed also said they had experienced unfair treatment because of their hair.

The lawsuit describes these pressures as factors in long-term relaxer use.

Where the Case Is Being Heard

The federal Hair Relaxer lawsuit is moving forward in Chicago, Illinois. Specifically the Federal court in the Northern District of Illinois. This court is now coordinating cases for national consistency.

Difference Between MDL and Class Action

The Hair Relaxer lawsuit is not a class action. This case is what’s called a Multidistrict Litigation, or MDL for short.

In an MDL, each person still has their own individual case, but the court handles shared evidence together. This differs from a class action, which combines many claims into one larger case.

MDLs are often used in complex cases that have many people suing over the same possible issue.

Let’s look at some of the scientific research linked to chemical hair relaxer claims.

The 2022 NIH Sister Study (Uterine Cancer Risk)

NIH performed a major study called the Sister Study. This research tracked almost 34,000 women for close to 11 years. During that time, 378 cases of uterine cancer were found among that group of women.

The study showed that women who used hair straighteners (relaxers) four or more times in a year faced more than double the risk of uterine cancer. Even one use in the past year was linked to higher rates than in women who never used straighteners.

Researchers called these results the first epidemiologic evidence of an association between straightener use and uterine cancer. Women who never used chemical hair straighteners had an estimated 1.64% risk of uterine cancer by age 70.

People bringing hair relaxer lawsuits cite this data to support their exposure claims. They say the study helps explain why these chemicals are central to their case.

The 2021 NIH Study (Ovarian Cancer Link)

A study on chemical hair relaxer use was released in 2021 that had been in part funded by the NIH. The National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities also supported the work.

The study looked at how often women used these products and how their cancer rates compared. The study found:

• Women who used relaxers four or more times a year had more than double the ovarian cancer rate of nonusers.
• The study also found that rates of ovarian cancer among women also increased as use increased.

People bringing lawsuits point to this study to explain their exposure concerns. They also use it in the lawsuit to support their scientific claims.

Endocrine System Disruption Explained

The EPA says the endocrine system controls growth, reproduction, metabolism, and blood sugar. ScienceDirect notes that it reaches almost every organ and cell. It depends on steady hormone levels to function the right way.

A Nature review says some outside chemicals can block or change hormone signals. The review links those changes to cancer and harm to the reproductive system. It also says hormones send signals through receptors. These receptors help control growth and energy. When that process is disrupted, the body can be placed at risk.

Other research explains that some of these chemicals can change how genes switch on or off. Studies link fetal contact with certain chemicals to later growth issues. They also link it to reproductive concerns.

The review also ties DEHP exposure to changes in genes tied to growth and tumor activity. The study reports that DEHP can affect key hormone receptors in early development. The lawsuit uses this research to support the endocrine disruption theory.

The Role of Formaldehyde, Phthalates, and Parabens

Several chemicals named in the lawsuit have raised important safety questions.

Formaldehyde

Formaldehyde is one of these chemicals. CAMEO Chemicals calls it a confirmed carcinogen, and PubChem repeats that warning. The FDA has responded with a proposed ban on formaldehyde in certain hair products.

Phthalates

Phthalates also appear throughout scientific reviews cited in the lawsuit. The reviews say phthalates can change hormone activity. They note reported links to issues with pregnancy, child growth, and the reproductive system.

The reviews show that phthalates can move out of plastics during processing. They also explain that people can take them in through touch, inhalation, or diet. Forms like DMP and DEP are common in personal care items, including hair products. Plaintiffs note that phthalates can also fall under broad labels like “fragrance.”

Parabens

Parabens are also part of the discussion. Research shows that parabens can act like estrogen in the body. Plaintiffs say the concern centers on steady contact over many years. They point to this research to support their endocrine disruption theory in the MDL.

FDA Oversight and Limitations Under Current Cosmetic Law

Many people think the FDA reviews the safety of cosmetic products before they reach stores. In reality, the FDA says that is not how the system works.

Companies do not have to send the FDA their test results. The agency must show that a product is unsafe under normal use before it can take action against a product.

Even so, the law still says a product cannot be unsafe, whether or not an FDA rule lists the ingredient.

The FDA urges companies to run the necessary tests to show their products are safe. Some makers rely on older toxicology reports, while others conduct their own studies.

Most ingredients are allowed as long as the product is safe under normal use and the label is clear. People bringing hair relaxer lawsuits point to these limits when they talk about gaps in federal oversight.

Now lets review the potential injuries and cancers allegedly linked to hair relaxer use from the lawsuit.

Uterine Cancer

Uterine cancer is a leading diagnosis named in the lawsuit.

Research cited by people bringing lawsuits shows certain chemicals can affect estrogen activity. They say long-term use adds to that concern. Sometimes when estrogen activity is affected, extra estrogen can be produced. Extra estrogen can support the growth of tumors in the uterus.

Important Data Points

• A 2022 NIH study found that frequent straightener users had more than twice the uterine cancer rate. This was in comparison with women who did not use these products at all.
• Data from SEER at the National Cancer Institute also shows a rise in deaths from this disease. Rates grew from about 4.1 deaths per 100,000 women in 2000 to about 5.6 in 2023.
• Earlier data from the 1990s shows an increase of more than 100 percent over that longer time span.

Endometrial Cancer

Endometrial cancer begins in the lining of the uterus. Research links one part of the risk to how estrogen and progesterone work in the body. Estrogen on its own can raise the risk, and progesterone helps counter that rise.

Other factors can change lifetime estrogen exposure. Starting menstruation at a young age or reaching menopause late can raise that exposure.

Pregnancy raises progesterone, which can help protect the uterus. Having more than one pregnancy can lower the risk even more. In some cases, hormone therapy uses a mix of estrogen and progesterone.

People filing lawsuits say these findings support their concerns about hormone-acting chemicals. Treatment for this cancer can include a hysterectomy. Many people suing list this procedure as part of the damages they allege.

Ovarian Cancer

Ovarian cancer is one of the diagnoses raised in the lawsuit.

Ovarian cancer symptoms are often vague and hard to notice. They may not appear in many women until the disease is in more advanced stages. This can make the cancer harder to detect and diagnose early.

In 2021, a study reported a higher ovarian cancer rate in frequent straightener users. The study found that use of more than four times a year was linked to over double the rate. The study also noted these hair products can contain chemicals that affect hormones.

Research has also looked at how changes in estrogen and progesterone can play a part in this disease. Some scientists say that certain chemicals can disrupt these hormones. For this reason, some researchers describe ovarian cancer as having a hormonally driven pattern.

The American Cancer Society estimated about 20,890 U.S. women will be diagnosed in 2025. About 12,730 women were also expected to die from it that same year. People filing these claims say this research supports their concerns about long-term exposure.

Reproductive Disorders, Hormonal Imbalance and Breast Cancer

A 2019 study shows an association between breast cancer and permanent dyes. This specific issue is not included in the lawsuit at this time. This means breast cancer is not a qualifying condition for filing a hair relaxer lawsuit.

In relation to chemicals that affect hormones, researchers have also looked at:

• Fibroids
• Endometriosis
• Infertility

The NIH has also commented on hormone-related patterns with frequent relaxer use. Even so, non-cancer claims are not part of this lawsuit right now.

Many claims in the lawsuit name the following makers and sellers of chemical hair relaxers.

L’Oréal USA and Its Relaxer Brands

Associated brands and relaxers:

• Dark & Lovely
• Optimum
• Mizani
• SoftSheen-Carson Precise
• Salon Collection (Optimum Salon Haircare)

Notes:

L’Oréal USA is a defendant. Its French parent company, L’Oréal S.A., was dismissed from the lawsuit in 2025 for lack of personal jurisdiction. Claims against the U.S. based company continue.

Revlon and Related Relaxer Products

Associated brands:

• Crème of Nature
• Revlon Conditioning Crème Relaxer
• Revlon Realistic
• Fabulaxer / Revlon Professional lines

Notes:

Revlon’s bankruptcy does not shield its subsidiary companies from claims in the lawsuit.

Strength of Nature and Godrej-Owned Brands

Associated brands:

• African Pride
• Dream Kids
• Just for Me
• Soft & Beautiful
• Motions
• TCB / TCB Naturals
• Profectiv MegaGrowth
• Beautiful Textures
• Dr. Miracle’s (certain lines)

Notes:

These brands were heavily marketed to Black women and children. This aspect is specifically detailed in the lawsuit.

Namaste Laboratories and the Former Dabur Entity

Associated brands:

• ORS Olive Oil (including Girls, New Growth, and Professional lines)
• ORS No-Lye Relaxer kits

Notes:

The parent company Dabur International Ltd. was dismissed from the lawsuit for lack of personal jurisdiction. Their subsidiary Namaste Laboratories who is US based remains a defendant.

Other Manufacturers Named in the MDL

Associated brands:

• Africa’s Best
• Hawaiian Silky
• Design Essentials
• Affirm
• Cantu (Certain relaxer-adjacent products. These are not relaxers, but some users listed them in product-use histories.)
• Luster’s Pink (Luster Products, separate defendant)
• Smooth Touch

Notes:

These are smaller or mid-sized manufacturers. Their relaxers were named across many individual lawsuits now centralized in the larger federal lawsuit (MDL). Some of these companies are standalone defendants (e.g., Luster Products).

Retail Sellers Identified in Some Complaints

Some cases also named retail sellers, including:

• Sally Beauty
• Walmart
• Target
• Walgreens

However, Walgreens Co. was dismissed in June 2025 (Keaton v. L’Oréal USA, Inc.).

Notes:

• A few retailers remain named, but their inclusion in the case is still waiting on a court decision.

This section lists relaxer products named by users in the lawsuit. The companies behind them are the defendants though. These products themselves are not defendants. They do appear repeatedly in lawsuits though:

African Pride Products Named in Claims

• Olive Miracle (Deep Conditioning, Anti-Breakage, Touch-Up, Dream Kids)
• Original and No-Lye Relaxer kits

Africa’s Best Products Named in Claims

• Herbal Conditioning Relaxer
• Originals Olive Oil No-Lye Relaxer
• Touch-Up Moisturizing Relaxer

Crème of Nature Products Named in Claims

• Argan Oil Relaxer

Mizani Relaxers Listed in Claims

• Sensitive Scalp Rhelaxer
• Butter Blend Rhelaxer

ORS Olive Oil Relaxers Listed in Claims

• No-Lye Relaxer
• New Growth Relaxer
• Girls Relaxer
• Salon Professional Crème Relaxers

Just for Me Relaxer Products Listed in Claims

• No-Lye Relaxer
• Texture Softener

Motions Relaxer Products Listed in Claims

• Classic Formula Relaxer
• Silkening Shine No-Lye Relaxer
• Smooth & Silken Relaxer

Profectiv MegaGrowth Products Listed in Claims

• No-Lye Regular / Super Relaxer kits

SoftSheen-Carson Products Listed in Claims

• Precise No-Lye Conditioning Relaxer (Original / Supreme)
• Optimum Salon Haircare lines

Soft & Beautiful Products Listed in Claims

• Botanicals Texturizer
• Sensitive Scalp Relaxer

TCB Products Listed in Claims

• Conditioning No-Lye Relaxer
• No-Base Crème Relaxer

Silk Elements Products Listed in Claims

• MegaSilk Shea Butter Relaxer
• Luxury Moisturizing Shea Butter Relaxer

This section explains how relaxer companies presented their products to shoppers.

How Brands Framed Hair Relaxer Products

Companies used different advertising techniques to sell products. Let’s look at how they were framed. We’ll also review what the lawsuits said about the language used in marketing.

Brand Messaging Often Included Natural-Sounding Claims

Many ads for hair relaxer products used words like “natural”, “organic”, or “nourishing”. According to the lawsuit, these phrases shaped how many buyers saw the safety of the products.

Many women bringing claims say the ads made the relaxers sound safer than they were. They say the messaging suggested added care and protection. They argue the ads did not match the risks that they claim came with long-term use. This point is a key part of their claims in the lawsuit.

How Some Children’s Relaxers Were Presented

One focus in the case is the Just For Me hair relaxer product. The company marketed it to parents as a ‘no-lye’ and ‘gentle’ formula made especially for young girls.

The women bringing claims say that marketing pitch painted the wrong picture of the product. They state the relaxer had more chemical ingredients than even some adult kits.

The people suing argue that the company continued to present the product as safe for kids. They say in the lawsuit that claim was not true.

How Companies Presented “No-Lye” as a Safer Option

People bringing the lawsuit allege:

• defendants promoted no-lye hair relaxers as milder than other hair relaxers.
• defendants implied gentle treatment formulas were safer options.

The lawsuit states:

• these marketing claims were false and misrepresented safety.
• No-lye or gentle products were not safer than other relaxers.

Packaging That Highlighted Oils, Butters, and Botanicals

Soft & Beautiful labels used ingredient language like “Botanicals” and “Natural”. The labels highlighted plant oils and butters described as “Ultra Nourishing”.

People bringing lawsuits allege that these claims suggested safer or less toxic products. They also allege those suggested safety benefits were false.

Claims Suggesting Added Protection or Care

Beautiful Textures is a hair relaxer brand made by defendant Strength of Nature. Beautiful Textures was marketed as a hair relaxer that did not use harsh chemicals.

In the lawsuit, the people bringing claims say those statements were not true.

How Motions Marketed Breakage and Shine Benefits

Motions used upbeat statements on its hair relaxer product packaging. It pointed to ingredients such as silk extracts, coconut oil, and shea butter as key parts of the mix. It also promoted smoother texture, more shine, and less breakage. People bringing lawsuits say those points built a friendly appeal around the product.

The women suing say this appeal was misleading. They say the wording suggested safety and a “natural” edge the relaxer did not have.

ORS Olive Oil Claims of Protection and Natural Oils

Namaste and Dabur placed the wording “Olive Oil” in the marketing copy for their relaxers. The lawsuit claims this wording gave buyers the sense of using safe, plant-based oils. The lawsuit alleges these claims were misleading. It also says they downplayed the product’s potential risks.

The labels included the phrase “Built in Protection”. The lawsuit alleges this wording suggested the relaxer was safe to use. The lawsuit says that claim is false as well.

The brand’s websites stated that rich olive and avocado oils would moisturize and condition the hair. They also list aloe vera as something that helps guard the skin and scalp. The kits contain other ingredients that can increase ovarian and uterine cancer risk. The lawsuit says the companies left out this important point when marketing products.

Statements Suggesting a Safe Coil-Relaxing Process

Namaste and Dabur marketing contained claims about tech and safety. They said their relaxers use the latest technology to safely elongate tight coils.

The lawsuit alleges that this safety claim was false.

How Dark & Lovely Marketed Oils and Triple Nourishment

Dark & Lovely printed words such as “healthy” and “nourishing” on its packaging. The labels tied a “healthy” gloss to shea butter, jojoba oil, and avocado oil. The labels used the phrase “Triple Nourished”. The women say that phrase was describing added hair care benefits.

The women bringing claims say these words shaped how the product looked to buyers. They argue the terms “healthy” and “nourishing” suggest safety. According to the lawsuit they claim this wording was not accurate.

Marketing Focused on Moisture and Safety for Children

The box for Beautiful Beginnings said the relaxer adds moisture and nourishes the hair. It also says it stops breakage without hurting the scalp.

The people suing say that type of promise can make the product look safe for kids. The lawsuit says the safety message in those claims is not correct.

Kids’ Relaxers Marketed With “Natural Hair Milk”

Strength of Nature’s kids relaxers feature natural hair milk at the center of the design. The labels mention:

• Coconut milk
• Shea butter
• Vitamin e
• Sunflower oil

On the packaging, a green leaf sits right beside the No-Lye Relaxer line.

The women suing say these marketing choices shaped the idea of a safer, plant-based kit with reduced toxins. They claim that the packaging sent a safety message. They say that safety message was undercut by the risks described in the lawsuit.

Africa’s Best Claims of Plant-Based Ingredients

House of Cheatham sells Africa’s Best relaxers. The label for the product lists “nourishing African botanicals and herbal extracts”.

You see leaves and earthy tones on the packaging and in the marketing. People suing say this may give the idea that the ingredients used mainly come from plants.

People may have bought this product believing it was free from toxic ingredients. They thought the product was safe to use and also good for them.

Women suing say the relaxer still contained harsh chemicals despite the natural look.

Silk Elements’ Use of Olive Oil and Shea Butter Claims

On Silk Elements packages, olive oil and shea butter are featured ingredients. The lawsuit claims this wording gives the sense it has fewer strong chemicals. The lawsuit says this idea of added safety does not match the alleged risks of using the product.

Oils and Vitamins Framed as Protective

Pink Conditioning No-Lye and Smooth Touch No-Lye kits are at issue in the lawsuit. Their kits were advertised with talk of “nourishing ingredients.”

Luster lists shea butter, argan oil, vitamin E, and olive oil as key parts of the formula. The brand also claims these oils provide added protection.

In the lawsuit, the women say this type of message hints at a product made with safer, more natural parts. They say the claims present body benefits that do not fit the risks set out in the complaint.

Targeted Marketing Toward Black Women and Children

In the lawsuits, the women describe representations they say were made by the companies. The women allege that their long-term product use was tied to product presentation.

The lawsuit claims the ads spoke directly to women of color. They claim women of color in the US face outside beauty pressure. They say these pressures are tied to Eurocentric beauty standards.

Claimants allege companies:

• utilized marketing angles tied to that pressure to conform to those standards.
• used hair relaxer ads featuring Eurocentric beauty ideas.

The filings allege this pressure made straight hair seem like the accepted look for social and work settings. The lawsuit alleges these promotions favored smooth straight hair over natural textures.

Lawsuits say relaxers were placed in stores and media targeting Black and Brown communities. They say this has occurred since the 1970s.

Hair Discrimination Context

The lawsuit describes claims that women of color in the United States have faced hair discrimination. Women suing say they have been judged harshly for the natural look of their hair. The lawsuit ties these judgments to the natural hair textures many Black women have, which are not straight. The lawsuit describes straight hair as part of Eurocentric beauty standards in the United States.

They claim this is especially relevant in social and work settings.

As mentioned previously, several studies have reviewed these issues. Survey findings show Black women and girls reporting hair bias at work and school. Some studies and reports have found that:

• Social research reports many Black women reported being told their natural hair looked “unkempt” or “unfit”.
• Sixty-six percent of Black and Brown girls reported hair discrimination. This figure came from a 2021 study focused on schools that had a White majority.
• For girls of color in all school types, the rate was 45 percent that said they’ve faced hair discrimination.
• Black mothers who were surveyed also reported similar experiences. Nearly half of them said they’ve been discriminated against because of their hair.

The lawsuit says, due to these pressures, many women of color feel the need to conform.

It’s true that hair relaxer use among women of color may not all be attributed to beauty standards. Women may have their own reasons for using such products, like personal style.

The lawsuit indicates though, that historically, straight hair was a way to integrate and find acceptance.

The CROWN Act

The CROWN Act of 2021 is mentioned in the lawsuit. This bill attempted to address problems reported by women of color who wore protective hairstyles. These styles include braids, locks, twists, and knots, along with natural textures that do not grow straight.

The Act sought to give these styles, and natural hair texture, legal protection in public schools and the workplace.

Now, let’s take a look at who may qualify to file a hair relaxer lawsuit.

To be eligible to file a lawsuit, one must fit the criteria for both health conditions and product use.

Now lets cover potential compensation for a hair relaxer lawsuit.

Settlement Disclaimer: Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. Each case is unique, and compensation depends on individual circumstances.

People filing suits seek compensation for losses they believe were connected to their use of hair relaxers. This might include economic and non-economic damages. Such damages may include:

• Possible medical expenses and treatment costs, including future care
• Lost income and reduced earning capacity
• Time off work and career interruption
• Physical pain, mental anguish, and impact on fertility

In some extreme cases, punitive damages might be awarded in lawsuits. Courts look at punitive damages only in limited situations though. To reach that point, a plaintiff must show the company had knowledge of the risk and acted with reckless disregard for it.

This timeline summarizes publicly available information from court filings, peer-reviewed studies, and reputable media reports. It is provided for informational purposes only and does not imply liability, causation, or legal conclusions.

October 2025 – JNCI Paper Identifies Possible Non-Reproductive Cancer Risks

Researchers publishing in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute examined data from more than 46,000 women in the Sister Study.

They reported that women who used chemical relaxers faced a higher incidence of several cancers not previously linked to these products. Over 13 years of follow-up, regular users were more likely to develop thyroid cancer, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and pancreatic cancer. The authors called for deeper studies to learn how ingredients such as formaldehyde or phthalates might contribute.

September 2024 – Conference Abstract Links Hair Relaxer Use to Higher Breast-Cancer Risk in Ghanaian Women

A new analysis from the Ghana Breast Health Study, presented at the 2024 AACR Conference on the Science of Cancer Health Disparities and later published as a conference abstract in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention, reported that women who had ever used chemical hair relaxers faced a higher chance of developing breast cancer. Those who used non-lye relaxers for many years had the greatest risk.

The study also showed the increased risk did not depend on whether the tumors were estrogen-positive or estrogen-negative. Researchers said more work is needed to understand which ingredients in these products may influence hormone-related cancers.

June 2024 – Hair Relaxers Linked to Higher Cancer Rates in New Study

Researchers at the 2024 ASCO Annual Meeting looked at nearly twenty years of cancer data from the SEER program.

It found that endometrial cancer rates for Black women have climbed faster than for White women over the past two decades. The authors pointed to frequent use of chemical relaxers, products used more than four times a year, as a possible factor.

Researchers suggested that frequent chemical relaxer use could help explain the increase. The abstract reported that women who used relaxers more than four times a year had more than twice the risk of developing endometrial cancer compared with non-users.

December 2023 – Peer-Reviewed Study Links Long-Term Hair Relaxer Use to Higher Uterine Cancer Risk

A peer-reviewed study published in December 2023 examined 44,798 Black women over 22 years as part of the Black Women’s Health Study. Researchers found that postmenopausal women who had used chemical hair relaxers for 15 years or longer and at least five times a year had a hazard ratio of 1.64 (95% CI: 1.01-2.64) for developing uterine cancer compared to women who used them rarely or never.

The study did not find an increased risk among younger, premenopausal women. The authors concluded that long-term chemical relaxer use could be a modifiable risk factor for uterine cancer.

November 13, 2023 – Judge lets most personal-injury claims proceed

A federal judge in Chicago ruled that the majority of claims in the Hair Relaxer MDL can move forward.

U.S. District Judge Mary M. Rowland rejected most of the dismissal arguments made by L’Oréal USA, Revlon, and other cosmetics companies, allowing key claims of negligence, design defect, and failure to warn to proceed.

The ruling kept more than 8,000 lawsuits alive in the consolidated litigation, which alleges that chemical relaxers marketed to women of color caused uterine cancer and other health problems.

Only three counts and part of a fourth, mainly fraud-based claims, were dismissed.

L’Oréal maintained that its products are safe and said the lawsuits have “no legal merit,” while Revlon stated it does not believe the science supports a link between relaxers and cancer.

April 21, 2023 – L’Oréal Pressured After Cancer Risk Reports

Following new studies linking hair-relaxer chemicals to uterine and breast cancer, British lawmakers and campaigners urged L’Oréal to pull its relaxer products and fund research on their long-term safety.

The call came soon after nearly 60 U.S. lawsuits were consolidated in a Chicago federal court, alleging that L’Oréal and other companies knew their products contained dangerous ingredients but sold them anyway.

L’Oréal denied any wrongdoing, saying its products are safe and that the U.S. lawsuits “have no legal merit.”

March 3, 2023 – Ben Crump and Other Firms Appointed as Lead Counsel

U.S. District Judge Mary M. Rowland in Chicago named the leadership team for the new Hair Relaxer MDL No. 3060.

Civil-rights attorney Ben Crump and Diandra “Fu” Debrosse Zimmermann were appointed as co-lead counsel, joined by Fidelma Fitzpatrick of Motley Rice and Michael London of Douglas & London.

Together, they represent women who claim chemical relaxers made by L’Oréal USA, Revlon, and other companies caused uterine cancer and related health problems.

At the time, about 75 lawsuits were part of the MDL, which had been formed the previous month.

The defendants continued to deny wrongdoing, stating that their products are safe and that the lawsuits “have no legal merit.”

February 2023 – Federal Panel Creates Hair Relaxer MDL

By February 6, 2023, the JPML agreed to combine all federal cases into one proceeding.

This step created MDL No. 3060, known as In re: Hair Relaxer Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation.

The cases were sent to Chicago, where one judge would now oversee discovery and pretrial matters.

November 2022 – Request Filed to Create Hair Relaxer MDL & New Case in Georgia

Lawyers for women around the country asked a federal panel to combine their hair relaxer lawsuits.

They said the lawsuits shared the same core facts and that one court could handle them more efficiently.

The request went to the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, known as the JPML.

October 2022 – L’Oréal Hit with Hair Relaxer Lawsuit and Issues Public Statement

Jenny Mitchell, a 32-year-old woman from Missouri, filed a lawsuit against L’Oréal and other makers of chemical hair relaxers. She said she began using these products as a child and kept using them for more than two decades. During fertility testing, doctors found she had uterine cancer.

Because of the diagnosis, she had to undergo a hysterectomy, a surgery that removes the uterus and ends the ability to carry children. Her case became the first major suit that helped bring national attention to the possible link between hair relaxers and hormone-related cancers.

Soon after the first lawsuits were filed, L’Oréal told The Washington Post that it stands by its relaxers.

A company representative said the products go through careful checks before reaching stores and that the claims being made in court are not supported.

The statement also said L’Oréal follows all safety laws in the markets where it sells its brands, including SoftSheen-Carson.

Here is how one can file a hair relaxer lawsuit.

Step 1 – Determine Eligibility

Determine if you or your loved one is eligible to file a lawsuit and gather evidence. The criteria is listed above, see it now.

An attorney can help verify if you qualify and prepare your claim.

Step 2 – Your Case Is Filed into MDL 3060

Once your lawyer completes the review, your lawyer will file your case. Your case may move into the larger lawsuit, MDL 3060.

Note: Fill out the form or call to see if legal options may be available. Inquiries may be shared with a partner law firm under a marketing arrangement. The partner may assist with next steps.

Did you or a loved one possibly get cancer or another serious condition from hair relaxer use? You may qualify to file a legal claim, depending on a review of your medical and product use history. A lawyer can evaluate your potential claim. You can request a free case evaluation here.