Hair Relaxer Lawsuit

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

1. Detailed news and updates on the chemical hair relaxer litigation,
2. Insights from our hair relaxer attorneys on how these lawsuits may unfold, and
3. Our projected settlement amounts for these claims

We are particularly focused on cases involving:

• uterine cancer
• endometrial cancer
• ovarian cancer
• uterine fibroids and hysterectomy from fibroids

Our law firm is concentrating our efforts on the following:

• Dark & Lovely, Ultra Sheet, etc., (L’Oréal, the most prominent defendant, a company worth nearly $225 billion)
• ORS Olive Oil Hair Relaxer (Namaste, LLC)
• Just for Me (TCB Naturals/Godrej Consumer Products)
• Motions (Strength of Nature Global, LLC)
• Revlon (which is in bankruptcy but appears to have good insurance coverage for chemical hair straightener claims)

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.

Hair Relaxer Class Action Lawsuit Update

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.

December 9, 2024: Discovery Disputes in Hair Relaxer MDL: Plaintiffs Demand Accountability as Deadlines Loom

Discovery disputes in the ongoing Hair Relaxer MDL are heating up as plaintiffs’ lawyers accuse defendants of stonewalling on crucial information needed to advance the litigation.

At the heart of the issue is a string of missed deadlines and incomplete responses related to product identification, chemical composition, and safety warnings—all essential details for the plaintiffs’ case. Despite court orders from nearly a year ago requiring full compliance, the plaintiffs argue that the defendants have yet to provide complete and usable data.

The plaintiffs contend they are still piecing together fragments of information through laborious document reviews, only to face incomplete disclosures. They allege that some defendants, such as Avlon and Revlon, have flooded them with disorganized records, often lacking specifics like product timelines or ingredient lists. The frustration extends to instances where defendants have cited “Rule 33(d)” to reference documents rather than providing direct answers to interrogatories, which plaintiffs argue leaves them spinning their wheels.

Defendants counter these claims, asserting they have complied in good faith and that much of the plaintiffs’ dissatisfaction stems from their own failure to fully engage with the materials provided. Some defendants, including Strength of Nature, argue that plaintiffs have not clearly identified gaps in the discovery process, making it difficult to resolve disputes. Others, like L’Oréal USA, maintain they have gone above and beyond by offering technical expertise and producing comprehensive documentation, including spreadsheets detailing product ingredients.

Adding to the friction is the issue of missing or destroyed records, such as those held by Revlon, whose legacy systems have caused delays. Plaintiffs are also pressing for foreign sales data and manufacturing details, but defendants assert this information is irrelevant to the U.S.-focused litigation and cite prior court rulings limiting such requests.

Tensions are further heightened by plaintiffs’ push to get these cases closer to read for trial.  Again, the close we get to trial the more likely we are to see a global hair relaxer settlement. So the plaintiff’ attorneys want tight deadlines. We want a December 20, 2024, cutoff for all defendants to provide complete discovery responses. Which is hardly unreasonable, many of these requests date back 18 months. Meanwhile, defendants argue this timeline is unreasonable given the ongoing production of electronically stored information (ESI) and the complexity of reconciling decades-old records.

Some of this will get sorted out at the status conference on Thursday where Magistrate Judge Jantz will have some important calls to make.

December 4, 2024 – 8% Fee to MDL Lawyers

The MDL has established an 11% assessment on gross monetary recoveries to compensate the attorneys working on behalf of all plaintiffs. This assessment is divided into 8% for legal fees and 3% for expenses. The legal fees portion is intended to reward the MDL attorneys for their significant efforts in advancing the litigation, including managing discovery, retaining experts, preparing for bellwether trials, and coordinating the overall case strategy. The expenses portion reimburses the costs associated with these activities, such as deposition fees, expert analyses, and document storage.

What does this mean to you? For plaintiffs, this means that part of any settlement or judgment they receive will go toward funding the common benefit work performed by the MDL attorneys. But most likely this will come out of your lawyer’s fee, not your hair relaxer settlement.

December 2, 2024 – 161 New Cases Added to MDL in November

After a surge of over 1,000 new cases in October, the hair relaxer MDL slowed in November with 161 new filings—a decrease of 85%. The total now stands at 9,649 cases.  You are seeing more hair relaxer lawsuits filed in state court in recent months. All fibroid and hysterectomy lawsuits are being pursued outside of the MDL.

November 22, 2024 – Listen in to the Status Conference

The next status conference is on scheduled for December 12, 2024, at 9:30 a.m.  The magistrate judge emphasized accessibility by allowing the public and media to join the December hearing via phone. Callers can dial 650-479-3207 and use access code 2308 182 1801 to listen. The judge reminded attendees of the strict prohibition against photographing, recording, or rebroadcasting court proceedings. Violations of these rules could result in sanctions, including restricted access to future hearings.

November 15, 2024 – Revlon’s Effort to Dismiss Lawsuits Fails

As Revlon nears the end of its Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings, Judge Rowland ruled against the company’s motion to dismiss certain cancer-related lawsuits tied to its hair relaxer products.

The judge found that dismissing all cancer claims with prejudice was overly harsh, particularly for plaintiffs without a confirmed cancer diagnosis at the time of filing. Consequently, cancer claims filed on or before September 14, 2023, without a diagnosis were dismissed without prejudice, allowing plaintiffs six months from their diagnosis date to refile. Additionally, non-cancer injury claims from these plaintiffs were dismissed with prejudice.

November 5, 2024 – Uterine Fibroid Settlement Payouts

After a hiatus, our firm is taking uterine fibroids claims again.  We have signed up hundreds of these claims in recent months.

We are taking these lawsuits because we believe, at the end of the day, they will have settlement value.  So if you have a case, call us.  But don’t be under any illusions.  These cases will not have anywhere near the value of a cancer claim that can be linked to hair relaxers.

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

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.

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:

• Pending Motions: Several motions are under review, including Defendants’ motions to dismiss and strike class allegations, Plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss non-cancer cases, and a motion against L’Oréal for non-compliance with discovery orders.
• New Defendants: Progress on cases against new defendants was reported, with some motions to dismiss pending and others settled.
• Discovery Issues: Ongoing discovery issues with several defendants were highlighted, including Revlon motion we discussed yesterday, and the need for court-ordered deadlines for Strength of Nature and Namasté Laboratories.
• Subpoena to NIH: Revlon’s subpoena to the NIH is in process, with discussions ongoing about how data will be handled.
• Electronic Discovery: Efforts continue to finalize search terms and methodologies for electronic document production, with ongoing disputes involving L’Oréal.
• Plaintiff Fact Sheets: The process of gathering plaintiff medical records and dealing with non-compliant plaintiffs continues.  If you are a plaintiff reading this and your fact sheet is not done, call your hair relaxer lawyer and get that taken care of so you do not jeopardize your claim.

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.

August 24, 2024 – Hair Relaxer Lawsuits in State Court

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:

1. Cook County, Illinois: Fifty-seven cases have been filed, with forty-four consolidated before Judge Patrick T. Stanton for motion practice and discovery. Four bellwether cases have completed briefing on motions to dismiss, with rulings pending. A discovery stay is in place until these rulings. Five cases may be set for trial in 2025, with the next status conference on August 28, 2024. Thirteen cases are still pending consolidation, which is on hold until after the August 28 hearing.
2. Georgia State Cases: Twenty cases in Chatham County have been consolidated before Judge Derek J. White, but are stayed pending an appeal in the Burroughs v. L’Oreal USA, Inc. case, which involves a statute of repose issue. Seven cases are pending in DeKalb County, with ongoing briefing on motions to dismiss. Plaintiffs seek to consolidate these cases under Judge Alvin T. Wong.
3. New York State Cases: Two active cases are in New York County, with motions to dismiss pending. Briefing is complete in one case, with a hearing scheduled for January 21, 2025.
4. Pennsylvania State Cases: Six cases are pending in the Court of Common Pleas in Philadelphia County, with ongoing briefing on pleading challenges. You can expect a lot more cases to start getting filed in Philadelphia.
5. Canadian Cases: Two putative class actions are pending in Canada, with no class certification motions filed yet.

August 20, 2024 – Refiling Dismissed Cases

August 5, 2024 – Discovery Battles

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.

July 22, 2024 – FDA Drags Is Feet on Formaldehyde

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.

July 16, 2024 – Discovery Updates

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.

July 11, 2024 – New Hair Relaxer Lawsuit

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.

June 28, 20224 – Fact Sheets

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.

May 24, 2024 – Plaintiff Fact Sheets

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.

May 12, 2024 – New ESI Special Master

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

April 22, 2024 – Special Master Battle Continues

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.

March 7, 2024 – Dismissal with or Without Prejudice

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.

March 5, 2024 – HIH Subpoena

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.

February 22, 2024 – Special Master for Electronic Discovery

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.

January 22, 2024 – Hair Relaxer and Three Types of Cancer

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:

1. Uterine cancer: the research linking the two is strong
2. Endometrial cancer: our lawyers are taking Type 1 and Type 2 cases but the link for Type 1 is stronger than Type 2
3. Ovarian cancer –  our lawyers are taking non-serous and serous cases but the link for non-serous cases is stronger than serous.

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.

January 19, 2024 – The Path to Trial

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).

January 8, 2024 – Judge Sets Deadline for Plaintiff Fact Sheets

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.

Chemical Hair Relaxers

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).

High PH Systems

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.

How Hair Relaxers Work

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.

EDCs and Phthalates in Hair Relaxers

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.

DEHP

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.

• New Hair Relaxers Lawsuit Video
• The Dark & Lovely hair relaxer suit filed against L’Oreal in Mitchell

Lack of Federal Oversight Over These Chemicals

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.

Uterine Cancer

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 associated with exposure to phthalate metabolites, chemicals commonly found in hair perm and relaxer products. This type of cancer ranks as the fourth most common among women. In the United States, the incidence rate of uterine cancer is notably higher in black women, who are diagnosed at twice the rate of white women.

Plaintiffs filing a hair relaxer lawsuit claim that prolonged use of these hair products containing toxic chemicals contributes to the development of uterine cancer. This connection highlights the need for greater regulation and safer alternatives in the beauty industry to protect consumers’ health.

These cases cite a key medical study that 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%.

Hair Relaxer and Ovarian Cancer

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.

• See if you qualify for a hair relaxer lawsuit.

Do Hair Perms Also Have Uterine Cancer and Other Risks?

The risk of uterine cancer and other health issues linked to hair relaxers is a growing concern for those using various hair treatments, including perms.

Many of the same chemicals, particularly phthalates and formaldehyde-releasing agents, are present in hair perms and straightening products alike. These compounds, often undisclosed under “fragrance” or “perfume” labels, have been found to act as endocrine disruptors, meaning they interfere with hormonal systems in ways that can lead to hormone-driven cancers such as uterine, ovarian, and endometrial cancers. With these harmful ingredients used in both relaxers and perms, women face similar risks when opting for chemical-based perms.

What Is the Statute of Limitations for Hair Relaxer Lawsuits?

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. (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.

Potential Settlement Amounts for Hair Relaxer Uterine Cancer Lawsuits

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.

The expected payout for a trial? It would be higher.  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 still fairly early in the hair straightener litigation. We need to see how strong the expert testimony will be.  Still, we can still speculate on the likely hair relaxer settlement amounts.

How Would a Hair Relaxer Settlement Work?

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:

1. Severity of Diagnosis: The stage of cancer at diagnosis would significantly impact the points awarded. Advanced stages would typically receive more points due to the more extensive treatment required and the higher impact on the victim’s quality of life.
2. Extent of Medical Treatment: The type and length of treatment undergone, such as surgery, chemotherapy, radiation therapy, or other medical interventions, would be considered. More aggressive or prolonged treatments would result in higher points.
3. Impact on Quality of Life: This includes the extent to which the cancer and its treatment have affected the victim’s daily activities, ability to work, and overall lifestyle. You can include pain and suffering as the biggest component of this element. Severe impacts would bring higher points.
4. Duration of Use: The length of time the victim used hair relaxers will likely be a factor. Longer usage periods will correlate with higher points due to prolonged exposure to harmful chemicals.
5. Age at Diagnosis: Younger victims usually receive more points due to the longer-term impact on their lives, including potential loss of reproductive capabilities and long-term health complications.
6. Proof of Causation: Strong medical evidence linking the use of hair relaxers to the development of ovarian cancer in the victim would be critical. Victims with clear and compelling evidence would receive more points.
7. Economic Impact: Loss of income, medical expenses, and other financial burdens caused by the illness would be considered. Higher financial impacts would result in more points.
8. Loss of Consortium: The impact on the victim’s family life and relationships, including the ability to maintain personal and familial roles, could also be a factor.

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.

Uterine Cancer Settlements and Verdicts

Below is a collection of summaries detailing settlements and jury verdicts in cases where uterine cancer was the primary injury. While these are medical malpractice cases, not product liability lawsuits, they may provide valuable context for estimating potential settlement amounts or jury payouts in chemical hair relaxer or perm litigation. These cases specifically involve claims that physicians negligently failed to diagnose uterine cancer in a timely manner, leading to harm for the plaintiffs.

The examples cited here were last updated in December 2024. The most recent settlement occurred last year. This lag reflects the relative rarity of medical malpractice lawsuits related to uterine cancer. Unlike more commonly litigated cancers, such as breast or colon cancer, uterine cancer presents unique diagnostic challenges that make it less likely to result in malpractice claims. Cancers like breast and colon cancer often involve more definitive diagnostic markers, resulting in clearer cases of negligence when doctors fail to act. In contrast, uterine cancer’s diagnostic complexity can make it harder for plaintiffs to establish liability, reducing the frequency of these cases.

Despite these differences, the outcomes in these malpractice cases may serve as a useful lens for understanding the range of damages awarded in cases involving uterine cancer, particularly as the legal community begins to evaluate claims alleging a link between chemical hair relaxer use and uterine cancer. By drawing comparisons, we gain some insight into how juries compensate this injury.

• $1,500,000 Settlement (Pennsylvania 2023): A 24-year-old female patient went the to the defendant OB/GYN practice on numerous occasions for treatment of irregular periods, abdominal cramping, and other issues before she died from undiagnosed uterine cancer. The lawsuit claimed the defendants were negligent in failing to timely diagnose and treat the plaintiff’s cancer, failing to refer the plaintiff’s decedent to specialists, failing to order timely diagnostic tests, failing to use due care and proper skill in diagnosing and treating the plaintiff’s decedent, failing to properly examine the plaintiff’s decedent in relation to her symptoms
• $5,800,000 Verdict (Pennsylvania 2021): Failure to perform a hysterectomy or a myomectomy on a 48-year-old plaintiff from Philadelphia resulted in the spread and metastasis of uterine cancer. After a four-day trial and six hours of deliberation, a Philadelphia jury awarded the verdict against Einstein Healthcare Network for its medical negligence. The patient, initially in good health and working as a director at the Juvenile Justice Center, suffered significant deterioration in her health, leading to multiple hospitalizations due to the cancer spreading to her lungs and spine.
• $1,800,000 Settlement (Illinois 2020): failure to diagnose uterine cancer in a 41-year-old plaintiff from Chicago resulted in a 4-year delay in treatment, allowing cancer to progress. There is a big difference between a delay in diagnosing cancer and causing cancer from a jury’s perspective.  And… a doctor who makes an innocent mistake is also a more sympathetic defendant than a company that puts toxic chemicals in their product without telling anyone.
• $500,000 Settlement (Washington 2018): failure to diagnose due to poor communication resulting in a 5-month delay of uterine cancer in a 71-year-old plaintiff with a prior history of cancer.
• $600,000 Settlement (New York 2015): failure to send an ultrasound report caused a delay in the diagnosis of uterine cancer in a 35-year-old woman. Despite the young age of the plaintiff, the settlement amount is likely lower because she did not plan on having more children.
• $430,000 Settlement (Minnesota 2014): doctor settled the case for allegedly failing to diagnose uterine cancer in a 60-year-old patient resulting in a 2-year delay and progression of cancer to stage 3C.
• $1,750,000 Settlement (Massachusetts 2013): failure to diagnose uterine cancer in 52-year-old plaintiff resulting in the spread of cancer to lungs and progression to the terminal stage.

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 lawyers are reviewing cases across all 50 states, assessing claims on a case-by-case basis to help victims pursue fair compensation for their suffering. If you believe your cancer diagnosis or fibroid condition could be related to these products, reach out for a consultation to determine your eligibility. You may be able to obtain compensation through settlements or potential jury payouts that reflect the harm caused by dangerous chemicals in hair relaxers.

Contact Us About Filing a Hair Relaxer Cancer Lawsuit

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.