Hair Relaxer Cancer Lawsuit | November 2024 Update

Our lawyers are actively reviewing hair relaxer cancer lawsuits across all 50 states. This page provides:

We are particularly focused on cases involving:

Our law firm is concentrating our efforts on the following:

Our attorneys also review chemical hair straightener lawsuits involving Optimum Salon and other hair perms and hair straightener products.

If you harmed by long-term use of a chemical hair relaxers, contact our lawyers today at 800-553-8082 or get a free online consultation.

Our law firm has been and will be the leading source of news, updates, and information about hair relaxer lawsuits in this country. Our attorneys are committed to keeping our clients and other victims informed. So bookmark this page and come back for the latest information.

November 1, 2024 – 1,000 New Cases in MDL

Over 1,000 cases were added in the past month, marking the highest volume of new filings in a single month since the MDL began. With a total of 9,488 cases now pending, this influx illustrates the ongoing momentum in the litigation as plaintiffs continue to join claims of significant health risks tied to chemical relaxers.

The MDL’s growth places mounting pressure on defendants as the litigation approaches critical stages that could shape future settlement strategies or verdict outcomes.

October 19, 2024 – New Hair Relaxer Lawsuit

In a new wrongful death lawsuit filed yesterday in MDL-3060, a Georgia woman alleges that prolonged use of hair relaxer products led to her mother’s diagnosis of uterine cancer, eventually causing her death. The suit claims that her mother regularly used products manufactured by L’Oréal USA, Inc., SoftSheen-Carson LLC, and other defendants.

The lawsuit asserts, as all claims in the MDL do, that the defendants’ hair relaxer products contained harmful chemicals that were improperly tested and inadequately labeled, leading to severe health risks, including cancer. Plaintiff accuses the companies of negligence, design defects, and failure to warn consumers, among other claims. The plaintiffs are seeking damages for wrongful death, survival action, and loss of consortium, in addition to punitive damages.

October 1, 2024 – MDL Drops 98 Cases

Last month, 200 new cases were added to the hair relaxer class action lawsuit. In September, the MDL actually decreased in size, losing 98 cases and bringing the total number of pending cases down to 8,393.

September 30, 2024 – Motion to Compel Documents from Strength of Nature

Plaintiffs filed a motion to compel Defendant Strength of Nature (SON) to produce non-privileged documents related to the “uterine study,” which are stored in specific digital folders. Strength of Nature is one of the defendants who manufactures African Pride, Soft & Beautiful and Just For Me. Despite initially agreeing to produce these documents by July 2024, SON has withheld them without providing a privilege log

Plaintiffs argue that while SON claims these documents are protected by the work product doctrine because they were gathered for litigation purposes. But that is a tough argument. The doctrine only protects documents created for litigation, not merely compiled for review. So plaintiffs’ lawyers correctly argue that these documents are relevant business records that should have been produced under standard discovery rules and are not protected by privilege since they were not created by attorneys or for the primary purpose of litigation.

September 29, 2024 – New Lawsuit in MDL

New lawsuits continue to get filed in the MDL. In one new lawsuit filed on Friday, a Springfield, Virginia woman is suing several hair relaxer manufacturers, including L’Oréal USA, Inc., SoftSheen-Carson LLC, Avlon Industries, Inc., Namaste Laboratories LLC, and Strength of Nature, LLC.

The complaint in Williams v. L’Oréal alleges that the plaintiff used the defendants’ hair relaxer products, such as Dark and Lovely and ORS Olive Oil, from 1970 until 2022, leading to her diagnosis of endometrial cancer in June 2014.

September 27, 2024 – Court Ruling on Economic Losses

In addition to the personal injury hair relaxer lawsuits alleging uterine and ovarian cancer and other injuries from these products, there is also a hair relaxer class action lawsuit from plaintiffs who allege they suffered economic injuries after paying more for defective hair relaxer products.

Plaintiffs claim they would not have bought the products or would have paid less if they had known about the products’ unsafe nature and health risks, including a heightened risk of developing uterine and ovarian cancer. They also seek costs for medical monitoring to detect early signs of cancer.

The Consolidated Class Action Complaint involves 34 named plaintiffs, who filed on behalf of themselves and two putative multi-state classes: a medical monitoring class and a national consumer class. Plaintiffs are seeking various forms of relief, including actual damages, the establishment of a medical monitoring program, statutory damages, punitive damages, injunctive and declaratory relief, pre- and post-judgment interest, attorneys’ fees, and other appropriate relief.

Today, the MDL judge mostly denied a defendants’ motion to dismiss these claims. The Court found that the Plaintiffs sufficiently alleged Article III standing by claiming they suffered economic injuries due to purchasing defective hair relaxer products. Plaintiffs also alleged a significantly increased risk of developing cancer, which justified the need for medical monitoring costs.

The judge also found—and this is important to cancer and other personal injury lawsuits—that the Plaintiffs’ claims were not preempted by the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act as the Plaintiffs’ allegations centered around a failure to warn about health risks rather than imposing new labeling requirements.

The court did dismiss Plaintiffs’ negligence per se claims under the laws of Arizona, California, Maryland, Nevada, and Pennsylvania but allowed negligence claims to proceed otherwise. Standalone medical monitoring claims under the laws of Arizona, California, Maryland, Missouri, and Nevada were also dismissed.

September 17, 2024 – L’Oréal Discovery Battles

Plaintiffs further argue that L’Oréal USA’s objections, including burdensomeness and the application of foreign blocking statutes, have already been rejected, and L’Oréal USA has not provided legitimate objections specific to any document categories. The plaintiffs emphasize that the court’s prior rulings clearly established L’Oréal USA’s control over its parent company’s documents, including those related to U.S. products, and that L’Oréal USA’s continued resistance is in violation of these orders.

September 16, 2024 – New Hair Relaxer Endometrial Cancer and Uterine Fibroids Lawsuit

The plaintiff alleges that the companies were negligent in their design, manufacturing, and marketing of the products, citing a failure to warn of the potential health risks associated with prolonged use of the relaxers. She has adopted several causes of action, including negligence, strict liability, breach of warranty, fraudulent misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment. The lawsuit seeks compensatory and punitive damages, claiming the products led to her diagnosis of endometrial cancer.

September 8, 2024: MDL Attorneys’ Fees

The Plaintiffs’ Leadership Committee is asking the court to impose a “common benefit fee holdback” on cases pursued outside of the MDL. This fee would be a percentage of the attorneys’ fees that would go into a common benefit fund. The purpose of this fund is to compensate the attorneys who perform work that benefits all plaintiffs in the MDL.

Leadership wants a portion of these attorneys’ fees—proposed at 8% for common benefit work—to be deducted from the fees of all lawyers using MDL work product, even in cases outside the MDL (unfiled cases or cases filed in other courts).

They also seek a 3% holdback for MDL expenses, but this portion would typically come out of the client’s recovery, though they are willing to concede this point to avoid controversy.

The 8% would come from your attorneys; the 3% fee would be assessed to your hair relaxer settlement.

September 5, 2024: John Mitchell’s Motion to Dismiss

Plaintiffs’ lawyers are pushing back on John Paul Mitchell Systems (JPMS) effort to dismiss plaintiffs’ hair relaxer lawsuits complaints against it.

The plaintiffs argue that JPMS misunderstands the scope of the allegations, incorrectly suggesting only a limited portion of the complaint applies to them. The response highlights that all allegations within the complaint are relevant to JPMS.

The motion refutes JPMS’s arguments that the plaintiffs lack Article III standing, asserting that the plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged actual injuries (e.g., cancer) traceable to JPMS’s products. It also contests JPMS’s challenges about the factual basis of the claims, such as the presence of harmful chemicals in its products and the alleged misleading advertising.

The plaintiffs argue these matters should be resolved in trial, not at the dismissal stage, and ask the court to deny JPMS’s motion to dismiss.

September 3, 2024: MDL Sees High Volume in August

After barely adding a dozen new cases in July, over 200 new cases were added to the hair relaxer class action MDL during the month of August. That marks the highest monthly volume of new cases we have seen in this litigation in several months. There are now 8,489 total pending cases.

August 27, 2024: What’s Happening in the Litigation?

Plaintiffs and Defendants submitted a joint status report for the August 29, 2024, conference. Key points include:

August 26, 2024 – Problems with Revlon

Plaintiffs’ lawyers are frustrated at Revlon’s compliance with pretrial discovery and filed a motion on Friday to force Revlon to meet its obligations.

At a case management conference on July 11, 2024, plaintiffs’ attorneys expressed concerns about Revlon’s failure to adequately respond to several sets of interrogatories and related document requests served back on December 1, 2023. Revlon’s lawyers explained that they needed to review approximately 900,000 pages of documents to provide comprehensive responses. The court then ordered Revlon to begin producing responsive documents on a rolling basis and to complete this process by August 9, 2024.

That didn’t happen. While Revlon did provide some additional interrogatory responses and produced about 900 new documents (totaling around 6,000 pages) by the August 9 deadline, they have not provided a clear timeframe for completing the entire production. This delay has significantly hindered the discovery process in the case.

Given these ongoing delays, the plaintiffs are requesting that the court order Revlon to complete the review and production of the 900,000 pages by September 15, 2024, or another date deemed appropriate by the court. Additionally, the plaintiffs are asking that Revlon’s counsel certify that the document production is substantially complete by that date. The plaintiffs also suggest that if Revlon fails to meet these obligations, the court should consider imposing sanctions, such as denying any of Revlon’s objections or claims of privilege concerning the documents at issue.

We tend to focus on the MDL class action. But there are many state court hair relaxer lawsuits elsewhere. Here’s a summary of the state and international court actions:

The plaintiffs have filed a motion to enforce prior court orders against L’Oréal USA Inc. and its affiliates concerning their control over their parent company, L’Oréal S.A., for discovery purposes.

This motion is predicated on two specific orders dated December 27, 2023, and March 4, 2024, in which the court had previously established that L’Oréal USA exercises sufficient control over L’Oréal S.A. to warrant compliance with the plaintiffs’ discovery requests.

Despite this clear directive, L’Oréal USA has challenged the scope of these orders, claiming that the court’s finding of control was limited to only certain categories of documents concerning non-domestic hair relaxer products. Plaintiffs’ lawyers are saying this position contradicts the broader spirit of the court’s rulings, which the plaintiffs believe encompasses all relevant and responsive documents under L’Oréal USA’s control, regardless of the technical specific category.

Why is L’Oréal’s holding back? Two reasons are possible. One reason is that they have something to hide. The second is that their lawyers are reflexively oppositional and are fight just to fight. Either way, this motion seeks to hold L’Oréal’s feet to the fire to produce all relevant documents.

Only about a dozen new cases were added to the hair relaxer class action MDL over the month of July. That pushes the total number of pending cases past 8,200 but this MDL has been hovering around 8,000 for months after being one of the fastest growing mass torts last year.

We do not expect huge jumps in new lawsuits as this litigation has been around for almost a few years now. But we are still very bullish on the settlement prospects of these cases which we think could happen in 2025.

The proposed ban reflects heightened awareness and regulatory action to protect consumers from hazardous chemicals in beauty products. Formaldehyde, a known carcinogen, poses significant health risks, including respiratory issues and an increased likelihood of cancer with prolonged exposure.

The FDA wisely proposed this ban in October 2023, but it is spinelessly delaying implementation. The FDA would say banning these chemicals is a lot more nuanced that my simplistic analysis and their is some truth to that. But the business and cosmetic implications are just not a even trade off for more women getting cancer.

Hair relaxer lawyers have submitted a Joint ESI Discovery Status Report detailing their ongoing efforts to agree on search methodologies for electronic document production. Here are the core issues and the current status of negotiations with each defendant:

Let’s look at where we are with individual defendants, if for nothing else, as a recap of who the key defendants are in the hair relaxer MDL:

Revlon: Both parties have agreed on 109 search terms, and Revlon anticipates starting document reviews by August 1, 2024, with a rolling production schedule.

L’Oréal USA: The parties are close to agreeing on search terms and custodians and are working through specific data storage issues.

Luster Products, Inc.: Negotiations are ongoing, with both sides working cooperatively to address unique issues related to legacy backup tapes.

Avlon Industries, Inc.: Avlon and the plaintiffs are discussing around 460 search terms and expect to finalize them by the end of July. Rolling production will follow.

House of Cheatham, LLC: The parties are collaborating on search terms, and plaintiffs urge immediate production of identified relevant documents.

Namaste Laboratories LLC: Significant progress has been made on search terms. A hit report is expected by July 17, 2024, and further negotiations are planned.

Strength of Nature LLC: The parties have agreed on 207 search terms and continue to negotiate the remaining terms, using hit reports to aid discussions.

Sally Beauty Supply LLC: An agreed TAR Protocol was signed in May, and documents are being produced on a rolling basis.

McBride Research Laboratories: Negotiations are ongoing, with search terms proposed and further discussions planned as document collection proceeds.

The plaintiffs’ chemical hair relaxer attorneys have requested that the defendants begin reviewing documents identified by agreed-upon search terms immediately, without waiting for the conclusion of search term negotiations, to avoid delays.

A new hair relaxer lawsuit was filed in the MDL yesterday by a Michigan woman against L’Oréal, Strength of Nature, and Luster Products. She claims she was diagnosed with endometrial cancer in February 2021 as a result of the use of these companies’ products.

Selective Way Insurance has requested a Georgia federal judge to exempt it from defending House of Cheatham, a defendant in the cancer-causing hair relaxers MDL.

The insurer claims that House of Cheatham’s 2021 asset transfer from a corporation to an LLC did not include a transfer of insurance coverage, as Selective Way did not consent to the assignment of the policies. Despite the corporate restructuring, House of Cheatham insists its insurance coverage should remain intact.

Hair relaxer lawyers on both side of aisle in the MDL support maximizing the insurance payouts. Plaintiffs’ attorneys aim to secure the largest possible settlements for their clients, while defense lawyers seek to ensure their clients’ defense costs are covered.

Having the insurance companies pay substantial amounts would alleviate the financial burden on the defendants, potentially lead to larger compensations for the plaintiffs. It is good for everyone… except the insurance companies. Which is why they fight.

The Hair Relaxer MDL saw the slightest of increases in the last month, rising from 8,170 in June to 8,192 in the latest count.

There are two reasons for this. First, the number of victims seeking a lawyer has dropped in recent months. Our law firm is getting fewer calls than we did in the spring. But there is also a renewed interest in filing these suits in state court, particularly in Illinois.

After Tuesday’s status conference, a group of plaintiffs filed a motion for a sixty-day extension to provide a substantially complete Plaintiff Fact Sheet to the defendants. The motion acknowledges that failure to comply with this extension would lead to the dismissal without prejudice of each listed plaintiff’s case for a duration of one year.

If you need to do more work on your fact sheet, call your lawyer and take the time to get it done correctly.

The number of cases pending in the hair relaxer class action MDL dropped by nearly 300 over the last month. This is a result of the fact that the plaintiffs have opted not to move forward with any cases involving non-cancer injuries. The total number of pending cases is now at 8,170.

The defendants made a laundry list of plaintiffs who have not fully completed their facts sheets. Some of these are legitimate complaints but the defendants want to puff this list with plaintiffs who have the most minor deficiencies.

Defendants claim that certain Plaintiffs’ firms are attempting to circumvent Case Management Order #9 by submitting entirely or nearly blank Plaintiff Fact Sheets by their deadline.

This tactic, they explain, delays the receipt of a PFS Warning Letter and grants plaintiffs additional time to comply with their PFS obligations. Defendants explain that it takes time for them to review all submitted PFSs, realize some are blank, and then send Warning Letters, which provide a 30-day period to cure deficiencies from the date of the Warning Letter. This delay occurs because the process is less automated when a document styled as a PFS is served, even if it is blank, as opposed to when no PFS is served at all.

This is not a widespread practice. They say 65 plaintiffs have submitted entirely blank PFSs. My guess is only a few law firms that are doing this. So we are taking about small faction of the lawsuits. But if the defendants’ allegations are true, they indeed have a valid point and plaintiffs’ lawyers doing this need to get their act together.

Professor Maura Grossman is the new ESI Special Master after all. See the April 22, 2024 below for context.

The FDA has missed its deadline to propose a ban on formaldehyde in hair-straightening products, despite concerns about its link to cancer, especially among Black women. The agency hasn’t explained the delay.

The defendants do not want Professor Maura Grossman to be a special master in in this case. They argue that her recent and intensive collaboration with the defendants’ counsel on confidential matters directly related to the same issues at hand disqualifies her.

Specifically, the defendants detail how Professor Grossman has been working closely with them on technology-assisted review (TAR) and search methodology validation in another ongoing litigation, with her involvement ending just weeks before the current declaration. They stress that Professor Grossman’s attempt to prematurely end her engagement in the ongoing litigation to become a special master here is inappropriate and does not align with the required standards of loyalty and conflict-free service. Of course, if they liked what she did in that litigation, we can all bet they would be singing another tune.

The defendants prefer Judge Paul Grimm from Maryland. Honestly, it is impossible to argue Judge Grimm would not do an outstanding job.

The early boom days of the hair relaxer lawsuits appear to be officially over now. Only 53 new cases were added to the hair relaxer class action MDL over the last month. That marks the 5th month in a row that the volume of new cases has significantly decreased. There are now 8,387 pending cases in the MDL.

The magistrate judge in this litigation held a status hearing yesterday, covering three main topics:

The next hearing is scheduled for April 11, 2024, at 11:00 a.m.

There is a dispute in MDL-3060 regarding the procedure for dismissing cases. Plaintiffs advocate for the right to voluntarily dismiss their complaints without prejudice or to amend them before defendants file an answer. They argue that defendants’ wholesale refusal to consent to such dismissals obstructs standard MDL practice and unnecessarily burdens the court with motions.

The defendants assert that according to Rule 41 and CMO 8, plaintiffs must obtain consent from all answering defendants for dismissals without prejudice after answers are filed. They contend that allowing dismissals without prejudice would undermine MDL procedures, potentially leading to forum shopping and increased costs for defendants.

Our view, not surprisingly, is that it is absurd to argue that plaintiffs cannot voluntarily dismiss their case at this stage of the litigation, particularly when you consider that it may be that some of these people cannot participate in discovery because the are sick either from cancer or the treatment for it.

Defendant Revlon issued a subpoena to the National Institutes of Health on February 14, 2024, requesting various documents related to the 2021 White et al. study and the 2022 Chang et al. study.

Plaintiffs’ lawyers PLC plans to filed a Motion to Quash this subpoena prior to the return date of March 15, 2024.

At one point last year, the hair relaxer class action MDL was adding thousands of new cases each month and it was on pace to grow to over 10,000 cases before the end of 2023. Those predictions never came true as things cooled off starting in November. Last month, 117 new cases were added. That brings the current total up to 8,334.

In our last update, we talked about the Defendants’ reservation about the need for a Special Master (refer to Document No. 436). Both parties have now agreed to the Honorable Paul Grimm (retired) for this role. Our firm is familiar with Judge Grimm. He is an amazing judge and extremely fair.

Of course the defendants have to have some silly detail they want to push. So the the Defendants want a monthly cap of $10,000 on the Special Master’s fees and costs, citing Rule 53’s emphasis on fairness and protection against excessive expenses or delays. Okay…

The Plaintiffs oppose the fee cap. At the anticipated hourly rate for Judge Grimm is around $750, that would limit him to roughly 13 hours of work per month under the proposed cap—a duration likely insufficient even for drafting and presenting briefs on the various complex issues.

The defendants filed a motion this week opposing the appointment of a special master, which they say is unnecessary.

What is special master? Often in MDLs, the judge will appoint someone else to oversee a particular aspect of a case. This role is typically assigned to manage complex issues that require expertise or focused attention, such as overseeing discovery processes, administering settlements, or ensuring compliance with court orders, to ensure efficient and fair resolution of specialized or technical matters within the litigation.

The defendants have specific objections to Philip Favro due to past relationships they say that might question his impartiality. Instead, they propose the appointment of retired Judge Sidney Schenkier if a special master is to be appointed, citing his extensive experience and impartiality as more suitable for addressing the litigation’s ESI discovery issues.

Our law firm is handling cases related to hair relaxer personal injury and wrongful death lawsuits.

There is another category of lawsuits related to hair relaxers that focuses centers on economic loss rather than personal injury. These cases involve plaintiffs who have not necessarily suffered physical harm but claim economic damages due to misleading product information or lack of proper warnings regarding the risks associated with these products.

So this class action lawsuit filed against L’Oreal, Revlon, Inc., and other hair product companies alleges that these companies sold hair relaxer products which not only posed an increased risk of uterine and ovarian cancer but also lacked sufficient warning about this potential risk. The complaint emphasizes that the products specifically targeted women of color and resulted in economic harm to the consumers.

How does that work? The gist of the claim is that the plaintiffs argue they paid more for these products than they would have if they had been aware of their hazardous nature. Additionally, some plaintiffs have incurred medical monitoring costs to detect and treat potential cancers early.

In response, the defendant companies have filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit in the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. They argue that the plaintiffs lack standing because they have not suffered a legally sufficient injury. The companies contend that mere exposure to a potentially harmful ingredient, without personal injury damages and solely based on economic injury from purchasing and using the products as expected, does not constitute an injury in fact.

We do not handles consumer class action lawsuits. Our focus remains on addressing the physical injuries and fatalities resulting from these products. But from what I do know about these consumer class action, these claims seem to be very viable.

191 new cases were added to the hair relaxer class action MDL over the month of January 2024. That brings the current number of pending cases in the MDL up to 8,217. This appears to be the new average volume after seeing 2,000 to 3,000 new cases per month last summer.

A new hair relaxer lawsuit was filed yesterday against only L’Oreal. The plaintiff in Grinston v. L’Oreal USA was diagnosed with uterine cancer in 2022 in Illinois. Plaintiff used the short form Complaint that is used in the MDL.

We are still in the infancy of understanding how many diseases are caused by hair relaxers. Our lawyers think there are three types of cases we can prove right now:

Types of Endometrial Cancer

Type 1 and Type 2 endometrial cancers are distinct subtypes with notable differences. Type 1 often presents with symptoms like abnormal uterine bleeding. Histologically, it consists of well-differentiated, lower-grade tumors with a more favorable prognosis.

Type 2 affects older women. It tends to manifest with fewer noticeable symptoms in its early stages and comprises poorly differentiated, higher-grade tumors that are more aggressive.

Type 2 requires more aggressive interventions, including surgery, radiation, chemotherapy, and targeted therapies. Type 1 often responds well to surgical removal of the uterus and potential adjuvant therapies depending on tumor characteristics and stage.

Types of Ovarian Cancer

Ovarian cancer is divided into two main categories:

Serous Ovarian Cancer, which includes high-grade serous carcinoma (HGSC) known for its aggressiveness, and low-grade serous carcinoma (LGSC) with a less aggressive nature; and

Non-Serous Ovarian Cancer comprises several subtypes like endometrioid, mucinous, clear cell, and undifferentiated carcinomas, each with unique characteristics and prognosis outcomes.

The plaintiffs propose the parties submit a bellwether trial list by February 1, 2024, focusing on ovarian, endometrial, and uterine cancers. (Defendants suggest a broader category of injuries.)

Here is the plaintiffs’ proposed calendar:

So if you are asking when will the hair relaxer lawsuit be settled, this scheduling order provides the best possible tea leaf.

Why? Because in a class action lawsuit like the hair relaxer MDL, settlement amounts are offered when a trial date is imminent. This schedule portends a trial date in late 2025 (hopefully).

Before Christmas, a framework was outlined for selecting and processing potential bellwether trials in the hair relaxer lawsuit, with the initial trial proposed for November 3, 2025, and a second one on February 2, 2026. This plan aims to identify representative cases from a large pool, each involving various products and injuries. As we have been telling you, trial dates are key to forcing the defendants to make reasonable settlement offers to women with cancer from hair relaxers. Would it be better if the trials were in 2024? Absolutely. But the wheels move slowly in MDLs, and there is not much that can be done about it.

Judge Rowland issued a case management order on December 19, requiring all plaintiffs to complete Plaintiff Fact Sheets. A plaintiff fact sheet in an MDL class action lawsuit is a standardized questionnaire asking individual plaintiffs about their claims and involvement in the case. So, it is information for the defendants that provide relatively detailed information about each plaintiff’s injuries related to hair relaxers; most notable for this litigation is the specific chemical hair straighteners used.

For those who filed claims by June 30, 2023, the deadline to submit these fact sheets is 45 days from the order. Claimants who filed between July 1 and August 31, 2023, have a 60-day deadline, while those filing from September 1, 2023, until the order date have 120 days. Any new cases filed post-December 19 are given 45 days to submit a thoroughly completed Plaintiff Fact Sheet.

In the final days of 2023, Judge Rowland partly granted a motion to compel discovery filed by the plaintiffs relating to information about hair care products sold outside the U.S. Judge Rowland also imposed a deadline of 2/29/24 on the defendants for responding to interrogatories.

Hair relaxers are a group of cosmetic products primarily used by African American women to relax, flatten and straighten their hair.

All hair, regardless of ethnic origin, shares common characteristics in its chemical makeup and molecular structure. The hair shaft, lying in the center and growing up through the follicle, emerges from the scalp as threadlike structures. These hair fibers are each composed of three distinct regions: the cuticle and the outermost area consisting of lamellar layers of structural tissue. The cortex, the inner area comprising the bulk of the fiber, and the medulla (the innermost area lying at the center of the fiber).

Hair relaxers are high-pH systems containing a strong alkali and are formulated as thick cream emulsions. Chemical hair relaxers are applied to the base of the hair and left in place for a “cooking” interval. The bonds found in the hair are located within the keratin proteins. The most important type of bond found in the hair is the disulfide bond, also known as the cysteine bond.

Keratin is very sensitive to increases or decreases in the hydrogen ion concentration (or pH) of its environment. Although it is relatively resistant to the action of acids, keratin can be broken down by high-pH alkali solutions. This property is precisely what is exploited during relaxing.

The chemicals in hair relaxers are applied to the base of the hair shaft. After the marination period, the hair relaxer changes the hair’s texture by compromising the hair’s protein structure. The effect of this protein damage straightens and smooths the hair.

After a period of weeks (4 – 8 weeks on average), depending on the hair’s natural growth rate, the treated portion of the hair grows away from the scalp as new growth sprouts from the roots, requiring additional relaxer treatment to smooth the roots.

These additional treatments are colloquially referred to in the community as “re-touches”, resulting in women relaxing their new growth every four to eight weeks on average, usually for decades.

The application loosens the hair’s tight curls and removes its kinkiness through a chemical reaction that breaks the disulfide bonds in the hair. This potent mix of chemicals in the products attacks the hair’s protein structure, causing it to flatten.

As the Complaint in the Mitchell case underscores, hair relaxer products are known to contain very high levels of endocrine-disrupting chemicals (“EDCs”). EDCs are chemicals that interfere with the endocrine system and interfere with hormone receptors. EDCs are present in hair products under the guise of “fragrance” and “perfumes,” and thus enter the body when these products are exogenously applied to the hair and scalp. Phthalates, estrogens, and parabens are the EDCs typically found in hair products.

EDCs can act directly on hormone receptors, on proteins that control hormone delivery, or disrupt the endocrine system in various ways. EDCs can cause the body to operate as if there were a proliferation of a hormone, resulting in over-responding to a stimulus or responding when it was not supposed to by mimicking a natural hormone. They can increase or decrease hormone levels by affecting the production, degradation, and storage of hormones, and can block hormone stimuli by inducing epigenetic changes, altering the structure of target cells’ receptors, or modifying DNA that regulates gene expression.

Exposure to EDCs is linked to numerous adverse health outcomes such as endometriosis, impaired sperm quality, abnormalities in reproductive organs, various cancers, altered nervous system and immune function, respiratory problems, metabolic issues, diabetes, obesity, cardiovascular problems, growth, and neurological and learning disabilities. Specifically, EDCs have the potential to cause several hormone-dependent cancers, including ovarian cancer.

Black women of reproductive age tend to have higher biomarkers of exposure to EDCs. Research has shown that Black women have higher levels of endocrine-disrupting chemicals in their urine compared to white women. No one could get their minds around the racial disparities in women’s health outcomes when it came to fibroids, endometriosis, and uterine cancer. But now it is starting to make more sense.

The other problematic chemical in hair relaxers is phthalates. Phthalates, often called “plasticizers,” are chemicals used to help make certain plastics more durable. Phthalates are commonly used in a wide variety of various cosmetic products, including chemical hair relaxers. Phthalates are known to interfere with natural hormone production.

The hair relaxer products manufactured by the defendants all contained phthalates, including Di-2- ethyl hexyl phthalate (“DEHP”). DEHP is a highly toxic manufactured chemical. It is not found naturally in the environment.

DEHP is considered a carcinogen. It is known to cause significant adverse-health effects including endometriosis, developmental abnormalities, reproductive dysfunction and infertility, and various cancers.

Other chemicals in hair straightening products include formaldehyde and parabens. Which of these toxins in hair relaxers most contribute to causing cancer? We are still figuring that out.

Why use these chemicals in hair relaxers if they can cause such harm? It works and it is cheap. Every Dark & Lovely lawsuit and other hair relaxer lawsuits will allege the manufacturer knew of the risks. Yet they did nothing to prevent these women from getting cancer because it was cheaper and easier to use cancer-causing chemicals. If this is the evidence that a jury hears at trial, you will see large jury payouts that will ultimately lead to a significant class action hair relaxer settlement.

Making matters worse, the government provides little control over chemicals used for perms and hair straighteners. Yes, the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act requires an ingredient declaration on cosmetic products. But the FDA is not minding the store.

A 2018 scientific study by the Silent Spring Institute, an environmental health research organization, analyzed 18 hair products commonly marketed to and used by Black women. The study identified dozens of hormone-disrupting chemicals in these products, with 84 percent of the toxic ingredients not disclosed on the packaging.

How is this possible? There is no law requiring the listing of the individual fragrance or flavors, or ingredients. So potentially cancer-causing phthalates are not listed as long as they are combined with a fragrance. It is ridiculous and hair relaxer lawsuits might be a catalyst for a change in the law. Until then, consumers do not know the ingredient declaration if phthalates are in the product they are using.

There are two different types of uterine cancer: endometrial and sarcoma. Endometrial uterine cancer is much more common and more treatable. The sarcoma type of uterine cancer is less common, but it is much more aggressive and difficult to treat.

Uterine cancer is a relatively common type of cancer. Around 65,000 new cases of uterine cancer are diagnosed each year in the U.S. This equates to around 3.5% of all new cancer cases annually. Around 12,500 women died from uterine cancer each year, which accounts for about 2% of cancer-related deaths.

The overall 5-year survival rate for uterine cancer is comparatively high at 81%. However, the sarcoma type of uterine cancer is much more aggressive and has a lower survival rate.

Uterine cancer has long been assumed to be caused by phthalate metabolites found in hair perms and relaxer products.

The hair relaxer uterine cancer lawsuit in Mitchell alleges that “uterine cancer is associated with phthalate metabolites found in hair care products.” Uterine cancer is the 4th most common type of cancer in women. The incidence rate of uterine cancer in black women is twice that of white women in the United States.

The Complaint cites a significant medical study that recently found that women who used chemical hair relaxer products have a higher risk of contracting uterine cancer. The study was published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute in October 2022. The study found that an estimated 1.64% of women who never used chemical hair straighteners or relaxers would go on to develop uterine cancer by the age of 70.

Here is the key statistic that makes you stop in your tracks: for frequent users, that risk more than doubles, increasing to 4.05%.

Ovarian cancer is comparatively rare with only 20,000 cases diagnosed in the U.S. each year. This is less than 1% of all cancer cases. The 5-year survival rate for ovarian cancer is only 47%, which is much lower than uterine and breast cancer.

The biggest reason for this low survivability rate is that ovarian cancer typically has no symptoms in its early stages and there is no simple way to monitor it. As a result, most ovarian cancer cases are not diagnosed until they have reached more advanced stages at which point the cancer has already spread and is less treatable. This is mostly because ovarian cancer has very few symptoms in its earlier phases and is usually

There is solid scientific evidence linking chemical hair relaxers to higher rates of ovarian cancer. The source of this evidence is Sister Study being conducted at NIH. The NIH research team published an article in a medical journal in October 2021 reporting that the study data showed an association between the use of chemical hair relaxers and higher rates of ovarian cancer. The Sister Study indicated that women who used hair relaxer products 4 times per year or more had a 50% increased risk of ovarian cancer.

Getting a hair perm may expose you to the same risks as you would using a hair relaxer. Why? Because many of the same cancer-causing toxins in hair chemicals are used during hair smoothing treatments at the salon. So may also see hair perm lawsuits flowing from this litigation.

There is a hair relaxer class action lawsuit in federal court in Illinois. But there is also an active state court docket as well.

Is it too late to file a hair relaxer lawsuit? The answer will depend on the applicable statute of limitations in your state. A statute of limitations is a legal deadline on how long plaintiffs have to file a case. If plaintiffs do not get their case filed before the statute of limitations deadline, their claim will be barred, and they will never be able to sue.

Each state has its own unique statute of limitations for personal injury cases like hair relaxer lawsuits. The length of the deadline to file a hair relaxer lawsuit varies by state. (Lookup the statute of limitations in all 50 states) If you are thinking about filing a hair relaxer lawsuit, what matters is not how long the limitation period is, but when that SOL period starts to run.

In most states, the start date for the statute of limitations is based on the application of the “discovery rule.” Under this common law rule, the statute of limitations period does not begin to run until the plaintiff knows (or reasonably should know) that they have a potential lawsuit.

One of the key elements in the ongoing hair relaxer lawsuits is the growing body of scientific evidence linking the use of chemical hair straighteners to hormone-related cancers, particularly uterine and ovarian cancer

Plaintiffs will rely heavily on studies that suggest a strong correlation between the long-term use of hair relaxer products and an increased risk of cancer, particularly for Black women who are disproportionately affected due to their frequent use of these products.

The most prominent study supporting these claims is the one we talk about above—the Sister Study, conducted by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). This study followed over 33,000 women and found that those who used hair relaxers four or more times per year had a 2.4 times greater risk of developing uterine cancer compared to women who did not use these products. Moreover, the risk of ovarian cancer was found to be 50% higher for frequent users of hair relaxers.

As the litigation continues to advance, the importance of strong causation evidence will play a critical role in shaping both the settlement amounts and—if these cases get that far—jury payouts. The strength of the data supporting the connection between hair relaxer use and cancer is substantial, which is why we are so high on these cases. Our hair relaxer attorneys are highly optimistic about where these lawsuits are going after we have been in this for over two years. We think the strong scientific evidence will lead to strong settlement amounts for victims. Whether through court victories or successful settlement negotiations, our lawyers are bullish on the prospects of securing justice in these claims.

It is still early to speculate on how much hair relaxer uterine cancer lawsuits could be worth at trial or in a settlement. But after more than two years in this litigation, we still thing the scientific evidence our lawyers have reviewed looks unbelievably strong. This is why you are seeing so many lawyers putting up television commercials for victims with uterine cancer or other injuries who are looking to bring a hair relaxer lawsuit.

Our lawyers believe that a strong uterine cancer case could have an average settlement payout between $150,000 to $750,000,000. Realistically, the average settlement amount will be a the lower end of the scale. Cases involving particularly young plaintiffs could be worth significantly more since uterine cancer typically results in permanent infertility.

The expected payout for a trial? It would be much higher. You could see verdicts in the hundreds of millions and even the billions, as we have seen in the Roundup litigation with similar injuries.

Digest this average hair relaxer settlement amount projection with the caveat that it is early in the hair straightener litigation. Still, we can still speculate on the likely settlement amounts of these cases. If we assume that the causation evidence linking chemicals in hair relaxer to uterine cancer is adequate,

Settlement payouts will also depend on the defendants in individual claims. L’Oréal has plenty of money to pay fair settlement amounts and jury payouts, but some of these smaller companies will likely have issues paying out fair settlement value for these claims.

No hair relaxer cases have gone to trial or even settled as of October 2024. In mass tort cases, settlements tend either cover all of the plaintiffs or groups of plaintiffs, segregated by injury or by individual law firms.

A hair relaxer settlement will be complex due to the involvement of multiple defendants with varying levels of responsibility. The most probable outcome is settlements reached with either individual attorneys or globally, utilizing a points-based system to equitably distribute funds among the victims.

This approach tries to ensure that settlement compensation is allocated fairly based on objective criteria, taking into account factors such as the severity of injuries, the extent of medical treatment required, and the impact on the victim’s quality of life. The points-based system is a widely recognized and accepted method for managing collective compensation deals because it is a structured and transparent framework for determining settlement amounts. By applying this system, victims in seemingly similar circumstances receive comparable settlement payouts.

What would bring higher points and a higher settlement? In hair relaxer cancer settlement a points-based settlement system would likely consider several critical factors to determine the amount of settlement compensation each victim receives. Here are the key factors that would likely influence the points allocation:

The flaw of a points-based settlement system like this is that it can oversimplify complex individual experiences by reducing them to numerical values. This can lead to overlooking unique circumstances and personal impacts that a computer and a points system just cannot calculate. Additionally, it may lead to disputes over point allocations and the subjective interpretation of criteria, causing dissatisfaction among claimants who feel their cases were not adequately represented.

Below are summaries of settlements and verdicts from prior cases in which uterine cancer was the primary injury. This might give us a lens to settlement amounts and jury payouts for a chemical hair relaxer or hair perm lawsuit. These are not product liability lawsuits. They are medical malpractice cases in which the plaintiffs are alleging that the doctor negligently failed to diagnose uterine cancer but we think these provide some context.

These verdicts and settlements were last updated October 2024. The reason that the most recent settlement is from last year is because medical malpractice cases involving failure to diagnose uterine cancer are somewhat rare. Cancers that hard to diagnosed, like uterine cancer, generate a lot fewer malpractice claims compared to cancers that are easy to diagnose (e.g., breast cancer or colon cancer).

There are different issues in these lawsuits – mostly medical malpractice – that you would see in a hair straightener lawsuit against L’Oréal or another one of these defendants. But malpractice cases are often hard to prove. If these claims are strong, the harm is serious, and the settlement amounts could be very high.

Our firm is currently investigating product liability cases alleging that chemicals in hair perm and hair relaxer products cause uterine cancer and other conditions that we talk about above. If you harmed by regularly using a chemical hair straightener, contact our office today for a free consultation at 800-553-8082 or get a free online consultation.