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,
3. The inside story of what is happening in the litigation, and
4. Our projected settlement amounts for these claims

We are particularly focused on cases involving:

• uterine cancer
• endometrial cancer
• ovarian cancer
• uterine fibroids and hysterectomy due to fibroids

Our law firm is concentrating our efforts on the following:

• Dark & Lovely, Ultra Sheen, 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.

Our hair relaxer lawsuit lawyers are actively representing victims nationwide. Our legal team is dedicated to securing the highest possible compensation for women harmed by chemical hair straighteners. Call our attorneys 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.

MDL Case Count

June 2, 2025

The number of pending actions in the Hair Relaxer MDL increased slightly in May, rising from 10,168 to 10,317, a 149-case uptick in the June 2025 update.  While filings continue to trickle in, this month’s growth was far less dramatic than in previous periods.

Again, there are a lot of state court cases as well.  Just last week, the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas launched a new mass tort program for lawsuits involving chemical hair relaxers, allowing plaintiffs to pursue cancer claims related to the long-term use of products such as straighteners and texturizers.

While the Philadelphia program currently includes a modest number of cases, it represents a structured and potentially faster-moving alternative to MDL in Illinois.

For hair relaxer attorneys, Philadelphia offers some strategic advantages over the MDL. The state court system is recognized for its efficient case management and ability to expedite complex product liability cases toward trial, often without the procedural delays commonly seen in federal courts. With fewer cases on the docket, judges can devote more focused attention to individual claims, increasing the chances of earlier trial dates and meaningful progress. Hair relaxer lawyers are also attracted to the procedural flexibility available in state court, which can provide more control over how cases are litigated.

And not for nothing, Philadelphia juries have a reputation for being very fair to plaintiffs, especially in cases involving corporate misconduct and consumer safety. That reputation, combined with the court’s readiness to try cases and a smaller, more manageable docket, makes Philadelphia an increasingly attractive venue for lawyers looking to avoid the bottlenecks of the MDL and apply pressure on defendants through state-level bellwether trials.

Discovery Moving Forward

May 21, 2025

Judge Mary Rowland has ordered attorneys involved in the hair relaxer MDL to submit a joint status report to update the court on the progress of discovery. This includes scheduling depositions and resolving disputes raised during the last conference.

The discovery pool includes 32 lawsuits involving women diagnosed with uterine, ovarian, or endometrial cancer. Fact discovery is due by February 2026, and general causation discovery must be completed by March 2026.

There are ongoing disputes over document production, particularly involving L’Oreal’s responses to requests for foreign regulatory materials. The parties were instructed to meet and confer, and any unresolved issues are to be addressed in the May 22, 2025 status report.

The judge also requested a detailed list of completed, scheduled, and unscheduled depositions. Three cases will be selected for bellwether trials by February 2026, but the first trial is not expected to begin before mid-2027.

MDL L’Oréal SA Dismissed (and it is fine)

May 10, 2025

In an order issued May 8, Thursday, Judge Rowland dismissed L’Oréal SA, the French parent of L’Oréal USA, from the Hair Relaxer MDL, finding that the court lacks personal jurisdiction.

Plaintiffs had attempted to bring L’Oréal SA into the litigation through short-form complaints, arguing that the parent company was responsible for the hair relaxer products at issue either by controlling its U.S. subsidiary or placing the products into the stream of commerce with knowledge they would be sold in states like Illinois and Texas. The court rejected both theories, citing declarations from L’Oréal SA that it has never manufactured, sold, or distributed hair relaxer products or their ingredients in the United States, nor exercised operational control over its U.S. affiliates.

Judge Rowland emphasized that the plaintiffs overstated the scope of L’Oréal Group’s corporate materials and annual reports, which speak broadly about global operations but do not establish direct involvement by L’Oréal SA in U.S. sales or decision-making. Even the fact that L’Oréal SA holds patents and tracks financial performance in the U.S. was deemed insufficient to create jurisdiction

The judge wrote that, “The threshold for allowing jurisdictional discovery is lower than for establishing jurisdiction, but it still requires a minimal showing that personal jurisdiction might exist — and that showing has not been made here.” The ruling leaves intact the claims against L’Oréal USA, its U.S. subsidiaries, and other defendants, and has no effect on the core product liability claims moving forward in the MDL.

The dismissal of L’Oréal SA has little practical impact on the trajectory or strength of the Hair Relaxer MDL. The overwhelming majority of cases in the MDL do not name the French parent as a defendant, focusing instead on L’Oréal USA and its affiliated U.S. entities—the companies that actually designed, marketed, and sold the products at issue.

Those U.S.-based entities remain fully in the litigation and are the ones that would be liable for any jury awards or settlements. And importantly, L’Oréal USA is not some thinly capitalized subsidiary; it is a multibillion-dollar company with ample financial resources to satisfy any damages arising from a resolution of these claims, whether through settlement or trial verdicts. This ruling may clean up the caption, but it does nothing to insulate the core defendants from accountability or financial exposure.

MDL Case Count

May 1, 2025

As of May 1, 2025, 10,168 cases are pending in the hair relaxer MDL, up from 9,936 the previous month. That is an increase of 232 new lawsuits added in just thirty days, which is surprising this late in the litigation.

Two more lawsuits were filed this morning to add to this list.. One of those came from Michigan, where a woman filed a complaint alleging that years of using chemical hair straighteners caused her to develop ovarian cancer.

Settlement Mediator Appointed

April 30, 2025

The court issued Case Management Order No. 17, appointing Ellen K. Reisman as a Special Master to oversee and coordinate settlement negotiations in this litigation.

This appointment is not unusual in large-scale MDLs. It should not be read as a sign that a settlement is imminent or even likely. The judge made clear this is a routine measure used to help manage complex litigation efficiently, particularly when there are multiple parties, varying claims, and overlapping issues.<

The Special Master appointment does not guarantee that settlement talks will succeed or even move forward in a meaningful way. It depends on whether the parties are ready to engage. That said, is it an encouraging development?  It is.

When Will the Hair Relaxer Lawsuit Be Settled? 

April 28, 2025

Where are we on a hair relaxer settlement? Despite the less frequent but still ongoing churn of new filings in the Hair Relaxer MDL and growing outside speculation, a settlement does not appear imminent.

The reality is that this litigation is still firmly in the discovery phase, and a global settlement is not imminent. The first bellwether trial is scheduled for November 3, 2025, with a second trial set for February 2, 2026. Right now, the parties are deeply engaged in corporate document production and expert discovery, with Judge Mary Rowland setting clear deadlines for Daubert motions and dispositive challenges. The bellwether pool has coalesced around plaintiffs alleging uterine, ovarian, and endometrial cancers — the injuries most strongly supported by the NIH Sister Study and related research.

There is no obvious “smoking gun” document yet in discovery. There is no memo bluntly admitting that these products cause cancer. But for defendants like L’Oréal USA, Strength of Nature, and Dabur, the bigger problem might be the absence of any meaningful corporate attention to the health risks chemical hair relaxers pose to consumers.

Sometimes the smoking gun is not what companies said, but what they failed to say or even investigate. Discovery so far suggests a long history of indifference, with minimal testing and virtually no internal discussion about the endocrine effects of key ingredients.

That, combined with mounting epidemiological evidence, creates a serious risk profile for defendants heading into trial. Given the current trajectory, meaningful settlement discussions are unlikely before Daubert rulings clarify the scientific playing field. Realistically, settlement will most likely be late this year or early next year.

Defendant Fact Sheets 

April 24, 2025

The latest dispute in the multidistrict litigation centers on the use—and the usefulness—of Defendant Fact Sheets during the bellwether discovery process. Plaintiffs’ counsel contend that the fact sheet process has strayed far from its original purpose. What was once intended to streamline discovery has now, in their view, become an exercise in redundancy. They argue that this phase is no longer efficient or productive, and suggest it is time to abandon the standardized forms in favor of more meaningful, case-specific discovery that actually addresses the merits of individual claims.

Naturally, the defendants see things differently. They are pushing for strict limits, urging the Court to confine the fact sheet requirement to the 32 selected bellwether plaintiffs and to curtail any broader inquiries—especially those they believe veer into expert territory or attempt to revisit closed discovery.

The core issues—scope, timing, and whether these fact sheets are being used as a backdoor to re-open settled matters—reflect a deeper tension about control and narrative shaping. From the plaintiffs’ perspective, this is really about avoiding procedural rabbit holes that delay substantive accountability. The defense, on the other hand, appears to be leaning heavily on procedural rigidity to contain exposure and limit the factual record.

With both sides entrenched, the Court now finds itself in the role of referee, tasked with deciding whether the discovery process will be a meaningful tool for truth-finding or a bureaucratic gauntlet that stalls real progress.

Pressing the Case Against Second Wave Defendants 

April 15, 2025

Plaintiffs’ lawyers in the Hair Relaxer MDL are pushing forward in their fight to hold beauty companies accountable for the hidden health risks of chemical hair straighteners. Over 12,000 women—many of them Black—have filed lawsuits alleging the products caused uterine and ovarian cancer.

The focus in MDL 3060 has now shifted to a “Second Wave” of defendants—companies that were added to the litigation after the initial round of filings. This group includes John Paul Mitchell Systems, Advanced Beauty, RNA Corporation, Wella, and others. Since February, plaintiffs have served more than 120 discovery requests targeting what these companies knew about cancer risks, how they marketed their products, and how they monitored safety.

Key discovery deadlines run through September 2025. Plaintiffs’ lawyers have had to overcome stall tactics from some companies. Dudley Beauty claims it was never properly served, while Roux Laboratories is trying to avoid discovery by piggybacking off Revlon’s document production.

Despite the delays, discovery is moving forward—and so is the path to holding these companies accountable.

New Chemical Relaxer Lawsuit

April 8, 2025: A woman from Newellton, Louisiana, has joined the multidistrict litigation over injuries allegedly caused by chemical hair relaxer products in a new lawsuit filed yesterday. The plaintiff claims she used various hair relaxers manufactured and marketed by Godrej SON Holdings, Luster Products, Namaste Laboratories,  and Strength of Nature from approximately 1990 until 2019.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff developed ovarian cancer and has suffered significant physical pain, emotional distress, and economic losses. She attributes her condition to long-term use of products such as the PCJ No Lye Kit and ORS Olive Oil relaxers, as well as several Motions and Just For Me-branded products manufactured by the defendants.

Filed as part of the broader hair relaxer MDL, the lawsuit alleges negligence, design defects, and failure to warn, among other claims. The plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages and has requested a jury trial.

The Path to Trial Gets Clearer

March 14, 2025: The latest order in MDL outlines the bellwether selection process, setting key deadlines and procedural steps.

Both plaintiffs and defendants will select 20 cases each by April 30, 2025, followed by a narrowing process resulting in 32 Initial Bellwether Discovery Cases. Fact discovery for these cases will be completed by February 16, 2026. Any case dismissed or settled before then will be replaced. Only cases filed by February 1, 2024, with completed Plaintiff Fact Sheets (PFS) submitted by February 28, 2025, and alleging uterine, endometrial, or ovarian cancer will be eligible

The order also establishes the timeline for expert discovery. Plaintiffs must disclose general causation experts by October 31, 2025, and defendants by December 1, 2025, with rebuttal experts due by December 15, 2025. General causation expert discovery will close on March 2, 2026, with Daubert motions due in April.

Following this, the court will select 12 cases for potential bellwether trials, narrowing them down to 10 by March 18, 2026. Additional expert discovery for these trial cases will conclude by October 16, 2026, with summary judgment and Daubert motions on non-general causation experts due by November 16, 2026.

As these cases move toward trial, the pressure on defendants to resolve claims through a fair and reasonable settlement regarding hair relaxers will increase. If the bellwether trials go like we hope, it will pave the way for a global resolution that adequately compensates affected women for what they have endured. If we get even luckier, there will be a settlement before we get that far.

Judge Is Not Negotiating with Defense Lawyers

February 20, 2025:  Defense lawyers in the hair relaxer MDL tried to play procedural hardball. It backfired.

They proposed a system to eliminate certain cases after months of discovery, but what really set off the judge was a footnote in their brief suggesting they would waive venue rights only if she adopted their plan. The court was not having it, making it clear that the defense does not get to negotiate the rules of engagement. Judges feel like they are under fire in 2025.  And many are understandably pushing back.

Hair Stylists and Cosmetologists: Strong Cases Emerge

February 19, 2025: Some of the strongest chemical hair relaxer cases our lawyers are seeing are those filed by hair stylists and cosmetologists. Unlike individual consumers who may have used these products a few times a year (and still got cancer from those limited exposures, by the way), stylists have been handling, inhaling, and absorbing these chemicals daily for years, even decades.

So their exposure levels are significantly higher, making the link between hair relaxers and hormone-driven cancers—uterine cancer, breast cancer, and ovarian cancer—even stronger in these cases. From a litigation perspective, this high-frequency exposure is a critical factor that strengthens causation arguments, making these claims some of the most compelling in the MDL.

Beyond the medical damages, stylists and salon professionals have significant financial losses tied to their exposure. Many of these women built entire careers around hairstyling, only to be diagnosed with cancer or reproductive disorders that make working impossible.

Unlike consumers who can simply stop using relaxers, these professionals cannot return to work in their industry, making their claims for economic damages much stronger. Our lawyers are seeing cases where former stylists have lost their entire livelihoods, suffered through hysterectomies, aggressive cancer treatments, and permanent health complications, all because manufacturers failed to warn them of the risks associated with daily exposure to these toxic chemicals.

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 highly sensitive to changes 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.

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.  However, the FDA does not mind 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 individual fragrances, 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 are unaware of the ingredient declaration for phthalates in the products they use.

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 that of 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 the 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.

Is There a Hair Relaxer Class Action Lawsuit?

Yes, there is an active hair relaxer class action lawsuit currently pending in federal court, consolidated as a multidistrict litigation (MDL) in the Northern District of Illinois. This federal litigation centers around claims that long-term use of chemical hair relaxer and hair straightener products has caused serious health problems, particularly uterine cancer, ovarian cancer, and other hormone-related conditions in women.

In addition to the federal MDL, there are several state court lawsuits proceeding independently across the country.  The biggest grouping of state court cases is in Illinois. These cases involve the same allegations but are handled outside the federal system, often under state-specific rules and timelines. The exception to that is cases involving uterine fibroids and similar injuries. These are all being handled outside fo the MDL.

Multiple companies are named as defendants in these lawsuits, including major brands like L’Oréal and smaller manufacturers of chemical hair relaxers. Plaintiffs claim that these companies failed to warn about the potential health risks associated with .

The big question our clients and other victims have is , “When will the hair relaxer lawsuit be settled?” There is no definitive timeline. But we speculate about the timing above in the updates. Settlement discussions typically do not occur until the early bellwether trials take place or the defendants have an incentive to resolve large numbers of claims through negotiated agreements.

Whether you refer to it as a relaxer lawsuit, perm lawsuit, or hair relaxer class action lawsuit, all of these terms point to the same expanding litigation aimed at holding manufacturers accountable for alleged product dangers.

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 file their case before the statute of limitations deadline, their claim will be barred, and they will be unable to sue.

Each state has its own unique statute of limitations for personal injury cases like hair relaxer lawsuits. The deadline to file a lawsuit for hair relaxer injuries 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 statute of limitations’ start date 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.

What Hair Relaxer Compensation Can You Seek?

If you’ve been diagnosed with uterine, ovarian, or endometrial cancer—or required a hysterectomy due to fibroids—after prolonged use of chemical hair relaxers, you may be entitled to significant financial compensation. Compensation in these cases falls into three main categories: economic damages, noneconomic damages, and punitive damages.

Economic damages cover the measurable financial costs of your illness. This includes medical expenses like surgeries, chemotherapy, radiation, and ongoing care, as well as lost wages for those unable to work. Future earning potential can also be factored into this category.

Non-economic damages, however, make up the largest element of compensation in these cases. Our hair relaxer lawyers are adamant that the most significant harm comes from the pain and suffering victims endure. This includes not only physical pain but also emotional distress, the trauma of a cancer diagnosis, and lasting effects on quality of life. For many women, the loss of fertility or permanent disfigurement—such as surgical scars—creates lifelong challenges.

Finally, punitive damages may apply in cases where manufacturers acted recklessly, such as ignoring clear evidence of danger or failing to warn consumers. These damages are meant to punish the companies responsible and deter future misconduct. These will be available in many states and will drive settlement compensation amounts when that day comes.

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 a 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 encompasses the degree to which the cancer and its treatment have affected the individual’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. More extended 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.

A points-based settlement system like this is flawed because 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 May 2025. 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 for this injury.

• $9,900,000 Settlement (Washington, 2024): The Washington Department of Corrections agreed to pay $9.9 million to a former prisoner and her family. The lawsuit alleged that medical staff failed to diagnose and treat her uterine cancer, allowing the disease to progress to a terminal stage. Despite early indicators such as a positive HPV test and a uterine growth detected via ultrasound, the patient was not informed of these results, nor was she provided with necessary follow-up care. This substantial settlement underscores the severe consequences of delayed cancer diagnosis and the importance of timely medical intervention.
• $1,500,000 Settlement (Pennsylvania 2023): A 24-year-old female patient went 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 a 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 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.