Hair Relaxer Lawsuit

Bellwether Damages Order

June 28, 2026

The new order from Judge Rowland ties up several loose ends for the bellwether cases and narrows the damages issues before trial.

The MDL judge is limiting which bellwether plaintiffs can seek certain categories of damages and requiring them to disclose those details now rather than waiting until trial. For out-of-pocket medical expenses, only four bellwether plaintiffs may pursue those damages. For lost wages, only three bellwether plaintiffs may seek those damages. Those plaintiffs must identify what they are claiming by the court’s deadlines, including the amount of lost income and the time missed from work.

The court also made clear that future medical costs and lost earnings should be established through expert testimony. Plaintiffs can still testify to pain and suffering themselves, but projections of future losses require expert support.

The judge is also allowing a small number of additional doctor depositions, including Dr. Susan Besser, Dr. Ravi S. John, Dr. Danita Cole, Dr. Dimitry Lerner, Dr. Isbel Lazo, and Dr. Lauren Chan. Those depositions must be completed by July 8, 2026. No other depositions are allowed because this discovery phase is closed.

The order also warns plaintiffs with duplicate filings, short form complaint service problems, or CMO 10 compliance issues to fix them quickly or risk dismissal with prejudice.

Salon Worker Claims Remain Some of the Strongest Exposure Cases

June 18, 2026

Some of the most compelling hair relaxer lawsuits now being filed involve professional stylists and cosmetologists. These women worked with chemical straighteners every day for years, applying them to clients and handling the products in enclosed salon spaces.

That kind of sustained occupational exposure may strengthen causation arguments, particularly in cases involving hormone-related cancers. For stylists who worked with these products throughout their careers, the exposure story can be stronger than a consumer-use case because the dose, duration, and frequency are much higher.

Handwritten Fact Sheet Dispute Withdrawn

June 3, 2026

The latest dispute was over whether one of the bellwether plaintiffs had to turn over the original handwritten version of her Plaintiff Fact Sheet. The defense wanted it because the product-use history changed across later amended fact sheets, and product identification is a central issue in this litigation.

Plaintiffs pushed back on both timing and privilege. They argued the request came late, after the bellwether cases had already been selected and after defendants waited weeks to serve what were effectively new discovery demands under the label of deficiency notices.

The issue ended without a ruling on the merits because defendants withdrew the request for the handwritten fact sheet. The court had heard argument and taken the issue under advisement, but once the defendants withdrew the request, the judge denied it as moot.

Defendants are still pressing for additional discovery in the bellwether cases, including treating physician depositions, family member depositions, hairstylist testimony, social media, photographs, metadata, and medical records authorizations.

Photo Production Fight Continues

June 2, 2026

One of the biggest fights in this litigation concerns photographs. Defendants are asking some bellwether plaintiffs to produce photographs showing their hair before, during, and after alleged relaxer use. In several cases, defendants are requesting at least one photograph for each year over periods spanning 50 to 60 years.

Plaintiffs argue these requests are overbroad and untimely. Plaintiffs have already produced representative photographs and answered questions about those photos in depositions. The defense wants more, including yearly photos and verification that no additional photos exist for missing years.

That may sound simple on paper, but asking someone to document hair appearance year by year, going back to the 1960s or 1970s, is a heavy burden.

Pennsylvania State Court Cases Remain in Discovery

June 1, 2026

There are 25 hair relaxer cases pending in the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas in Philadelphia County. Those cases are coordinated before Judge Joshua Roberts and are currently in written discovery.

No plaintiff depositions have occurred yet, and there is no formal trial selection process or trial date. Pennsylvania is behind Illinois and Georgia in terms of trial pressure, but the docket remains another active state court front for plaintiffs.

New Wrongful Death Lawsuit

May 20, 2026

In a new lawsuit filed in the hair relaxer MDL, the family of a South Carolina woman alleges that decades of chemical hair relaxer use caused her ovarian and uterine cancers before her death. The woman used hair relaxer products from approximately 1994 through 2022, including Just For Me Relaxer 1 Complete Touch Up Relaxer and Just For Me No-Lye Conditioning Crème Relaxer Kit with Coil & Curl Cream.

The lawsuit names Godrej SON Holdings, Inc. and Strength of Nature, LLC as defendants and alleges the woman developed ovarian cancer and uterine cancer after years of exposure to the companies’ relaxer products. The complaint also includes wrongful death and survival claims on behalf of her family.

The complaint adopts the master allegations in the hair relaxer MDL and asserts claims including negligence, negligent misrepresentation, failure to warn, design defect, fraud, breach of warranty, unjust enrichment, wrongful death, survival, and punitive damages.

L’Oréal Deposition Errata Fight

May 12, 2026

Plaintiffs’ lawyers in the hair relaxer MDL are asking Judge Mary Rowland to review a ruling involving L’Oréal’s corporate deposition testimony. The issue is L’Oréal’s use of the errata process after the deposition of its corporate witness, Enrico Gilberti III, Ph.D.

An errata sheet is supposed to correct mistakes after a deposition transcript is prepared. Plaintiffs argue L’Oréal used the process to rewrite sworn corporate testimony, including testimony about whether the company received and reported serious adverse events involving chemical hair relaxers.

The magistrate judge denied plaintiffs’ motion to strike the errata changes without prejudice, meaning plaintiffs can raise the issue again later. Plaintiffs are now asking the district judge to review the legal reasoning and preserve their objections.

Their argument is straightforward: this was Rule 30(b)(6) corporate testimony in an MDL involving thousands of cases. Plaintiffs say L’Oréal chose the witness to speak for the company and should not be allowed to reshape that testimony after the fact.

New Uterine Cancer Lawsuit Filed

April 19, 2026

A new hair relaxer lawsuit was filed in the Northern District of Illinois alleging that chemical hair straightening products caused the plaintiff to develop uterine cancer. The complaint is a short-form filing that incorporates the Master Long Form Complaint by reference, meaning it adopts the general allegations and legal theories from the MDL while adding plaintiff-specific details.

The plaintiff sued Godrej SON Holdings, Inc., doing business as Strength of Nature, LLC, and identified several product lines in the company’s portfolio, including African Pride, Dr. Miracle’s, Elasta QP, Just For Me, Motions, Profectiv, SmartPerm, Soft & Beautiful, TCB Naturals, and UltraSheen.

The filing is another example of the continuing flow of cancer claims into the MDL. Product identification, duration of use, diagnosis date, and venue will remain key issues as these cases move through discovery.

Hairstyle Photo Dispute

April 15, 2026

A fight is brewing over hairstyle photographs produced by plaintiffs White and Perkins. Defendants originally requested a representative sample with the time periods noted. Plaintiffs say they did exactly that.

Defendants then changed the terms, demanding a more detailed accounting of what each photo is representative of across the entire period of relaxer use, including periods of nonuse. Plaintiffs call it a new dispute raised after the discovery deadline.

Judge Selects 10 Bellwether Cases

April 8, 2026

Judge Rowland has now taken direct control of the hair relaxer bellwether lineup, selecting 10 cases herself and revising the prior case management order to do so. The court scrapped the earlier process under which the parties were supposed to take turns picking throughout April and instead decided to set the full 10-case pool at once.

The court made clear that the purpose of bellwether trials is to provide juries and the parties with useful information about the broader litigation, which means the cases must be genuinely representative. The court is trying to let juries focus on the core issues, especially causation and damages, without outside complications that distract from the main case.

The court excluded several categories of claims from the bellwether pool, including cases involving only one or two defendants, cases with significant memory or mental health issues, cases involving another cancer diagnosis, and cases with overlapping talc claims.

The court’s focus on representative cases suggests it wants bellwether results that can move settlement talks, not verdicts that both sides later dismiss as too fact-specific to matter.

Medical Monitoring Class Certification Motion

March 26, 2026

A group of 11 plaintiffs representing seven different medical monitoring class actions asked Judge Rowland to certify those claims so they could proceed on a classwide basis. The motion argues that former hair relaxer users who have not yet been diagnosed with cancer still face an elevated long-term risk and should be entitled to court-supervised medical monitoring.

Medical monitoring claims are brought by people who were exposed to a harmful product or substance and want the company to pay for future medical testing to catch disease early, even if they have not yet been diagnosed.

Expert Discovery Deepens

March 9, 2026

The MDL is moving deeper into expert discovery. The recent status hearing focused on tightening the issues and setting rules for the upcoming fight over expert testimony, which will meaningfully shape the litigation.

Judge Rowland pushed the parties to streamline the case by agreeing on basic factual stipulations involving marketing, advertising, labeling, warnings, and product instructions. The goal is to avoid wasting time litigating facts that are not seriously disputed.

The court also set a framework for Daubert motions, which are motions seeking to exclude expert testimony. In mass tort litigation, the Daubert stage often drives settlement leverage because it determines what science the jury will hear.

Judge Rowland allowed the parties flexibility in structuring filings but imposed clear page limits. Defendants get up to 100 pages to challenge plaintiffs’ ten experts. Plaintiffs can respond with either one 100-page brief or ten separate responses limited to ten pages each. Defendants will then get 50 pages for a reply.

Avlon Discovery Dispute

February 16, 2026

The latest discovery skirmish in the Avlon litigation centers on former employee Tom Bingham’s separation from the company. Judge Beth W. Jantz reviewed Bingham’s separation agreement in camera after plaintiffs argued that defense counsel improperly used the agreement’s confidentiality provisions to block questioning during his deposition.

The dispute asks whether a private separation agreement can be used to limit a witness’s testimony in federal litigation. By examining the agreement herself, Judge Jantz is assessing whether the defense objections were justified or whether further testimony should be compelled.

Bellwether Discovery Update

February 3, 2026

There are now 11,195 plaintiffs in the MDL, and most of those cases are on hold while the bellwether process moves forward. Defendants have deposed 29 of the 32 bellwether plaintiffs, with the remaining three expected to finish by early February.

Defendants want more time to depose third-party witnesses, including doctors, hairstylists, and family members. Plaintiffs oppose the request, arguing that defendants waited too long and that extending discovery across all 32 bellwether cases would burden third parties for limited value.

Another discovery fight is developing over corporate testimony. Plaintiffs are seeking limited Rule 30(b)(6) depositions tied to specific products, years, and geographic markets relevant to individual bellwether plaintiffs. Defendants argue this reopens general discovery. Plaintiffs respond that product-specific and market-specific testimony is necessary to understand what warnings and advertisements each plaintiff may have seen.

Outside the MDL, state court cases continue to develop. Illinois is moving toward cohort trials in late 2026 and early 2027. Georgia plaintiffs won a significant statute-of-repose issue. New York discovery is moving. Philadelphia is organizing.

Defendants in the Hair Relaxer Litigation

January 6, 2026

Our law firm is concentrating our efforts on claims involving the following defendants and product lines:

• Dark & Lovely, Ultra Sheen, and other L’Oréal products
• ORS Olive Oil Hair Relaxer
• Just for Me
• Motions
• Revlon, which is in bankruptcy but appears to have insurance coverage for chemical hair straightener claims
• Optimum Salon and other hair perm and hair straightener products

Settlement Timing

January 4, 2026

Discovery in the federal hair relaxer MDL is still moving forward. Depositions continue, expert work is advancing, and the cases are moving through the mass tort process. But none of that has translated into meaningful settlement pressure yet.

Trial dates change everything. When companies know that a jury could be sitting in a courtroom within months, everyone gets more realistic about risk. Right now, the first MDL trial is still too far away to create that level of settlement pressure.

The next major turning point will come when the court rules on expert challenges and decides what evidence will be allowed before a jury. Those rulings will narrow the battlefield and drive the next phase of settlement analysis.

New Order After Status Conference

September 11, 2025

Judge Rowland is moving the hair relaxer MDL forward with a mix of deadline management and procedural housekeeping.

The judge gave plaintiffs more time on their expert disclosures related to general causation, extending their deadline to December 1. Defendants now have until January 6, 2026, to serve their own reports, with rebuttals from plaintiffs due January 20. Science Day remains set for January 8.

The judge is also keeping pressure on deposition progress. The court ordered a brief joint update from both sides by September 24 to report on actual deposition progress. The expert discovery cutoff and Daubert briefing schedule are coming soon.

Insurance Coverage Fight Matters

September 5, 2025

Sally Beauty Holdings Inc. sued Cincinnati Insurance Co. and Cincinnati Casualty Co. in Texas federal court, alleging they breached coverage obligations by failing to fully pay defense costs in lawsuits over hair relaxer products.

Coverage fights like this matter because insurance money can affect settlement resources. If insurers honor defense and indemnity obligations, companies may have more resources available to resolve claims brought by women who allege they were harmed by chemical hair relaxers.

Science Day Scheduled

September 1, 2025

Judge Rowland has scheduled Science Day for January 8, 2026. While it is formally a non-adversarial proceeding, the presentations will have strategic importance because they will help educate the court on the scientific and medical issues at the heart of the litigation.

Plaintiffs will present their experts in the morning, laying out the research that links chemical hair relaxers to uterine cancer, fibroids, and other hormone-related injuries. The defense will respond in the afternoon, seeking to introduce uncertainty, alternative explanations, and statistical counterpoints.

There will be no testimony under oath, no cross-examination, and no rulings. But Science Day will help frame how the court processes expert testimony before Daubert motions and dispositive briefs are filed.

In 2026, the hair relaxer MDL continues to move through discovery, expert development, and bellwether preparation. Defendants are fighting hard to narrow the cases and challenge causation, while plaintiffs are pushing toward trial pressure. The first MDL trials are not expected until 2027, but state court claims may move faster and could influence settlement discussions.

Trial dates usually create settlement pressure. Right now, defendants still have room to fight over discovery, expert testimony, product identification, and causation. A settlement is more likely after major expert rulings or when trials become close enough that defendants face real jury risk.

We have a trial coming on in January 2027 that still seems on track.  As that trial approaches, the hope is the defendants become more realistic about settlement.

Hair stylists and cosmetologists may have strong claims because they were not just occasional users. They handled, inhaled, and absorbed these chemicals daily for years. That level of occupational exposure can strengthen the causation argument and may also support economic damages if illness forced them out of their profession.

Settlement values will depend heavily on injury type, product use history, diagnosis, medical treatment, age, fertility impact, and the strength of causation evidence. Uterine, ovarian, and endometrial cancer cases are expected to have higher values than fibroid-only cases. Our projected settlement discussion appears below.

Revlon’s bankruptcy complicates the litigation, but it does not necessarily eliminate recovery. Revlon appears to have insurance coverage that may be available for valid claims. In mass tort bankruptcies, insurance can be a major source of settlement funds.

If you used chemical relaxers, including brands like Dark & Lovely, Optimum, ORS, Just for Me, Motions, Revlon, and others, and were later diagnosed with uterine, ovarian, or endometrial cancer, or required a hysterectomy due to fibroids, you may have a claim. Call 800-553-8082 or talk to a lawyer now.