Lawsuit Information Center
Our lawyers are actively reviewing hair relaxer cancer lawsuits across all 50 states. This page provides:
- Detailed news and updates on the chemical hair relaxer litigation,
- Insights from our hair relaxer attorneys on how these lawsuits may unfold,
- The inside story of what is happening in the litigation, and
- Our projected settlement amounts for these claims
We are particularly focused on cases involving:
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.
Sole Walgreens Case Dismissed
June 24, 2025
The MDL judge has dismissed the only complaint in the hair relaxer MDL naming Walgreens as a defendant.
The plaintiff’s sister died of uterine cancer after using hair relaxers purchased from Walgreens. Judge Mary M. Rowland ruled the complaint lacked basic specificity, identifying only a single 2010 purchase, no concrete product warnings or representations, and no factual allegations that Walgreens knew or should have known of cancer risks.
The court emphasized that the plaintiff’s claims rested on speculation and failed to establish a “meaningful connection” between Walgreens’s conduct and the alleged harm. Her breach of warranty claims lacked any factual basis showing reliance or defect, and the unjust enrichment claim failed to allege how Walgreens’s retention of money was unjust or inequitable.
The hair relaxer lawyers in the MDL abandoned Walgreens as a possible defendant long ago.
Philadelphia Chemical Relaxer Lawsuits Consolidated
June 23, 2025
The Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas formally coordinated dozens of lawsuits into a consolidated mass tort program focused on hair relaxer products in Pennsylvania state court.
The court’s complex litigation center is now managing these cases as a unified docket, allowing for streamlined discovery and pretrial proceedings. There are about 25 cases that have been formally included in the program.
But our lawyers expects that number to grow. Philadelphia is an attractive place to bring these claims. Given the volume of mass torts already litigated in Philadelphia, such as those involving Paraquat and Roundup, the city offers a tested and plaintiff-accessible venue with a proven track record of significant outcomes to worthy victims.
Coordinated proceedings in Georgia and New York are also underway, along with, of course, the federal hair relaxer MDL in the Northern District of Illinois.
Statute of Repose Battle in Georgia
June 22, 2025
Georgia’s Supreme Court is deciding whether people harmed by long-term use of products like chemical hair relaxers can still sue if more than 10 years have passed since they first used the product. This centers on something called a statute of repose, which is a strict time limit on how long someone has to file a lawsuit, no matter when the injury shows up. In Georgia, that limit is 10 years from the first time the product was sold for use.
The problem is that many injuries caused by repeated exposure, like hormone-related cancers or uterine fibroids, do not appear right away. If the 10-year clock starts with the first use, then people who used the product for years might be blocked from suing, just because the harm took time to show. That would allow companies to continue selling the same product repeatedly to the same people without any responsibility for the damage caused by those repeated exposures. For products like hair relaxers that cause injury over time, the law needs to account for how they are actually used, not just when they were first bought.
The Path to Trial (or Settlement)
June 20, 2025
The Hair Relaxer Lawsuit MDL is officially entering its most important phase: the countdown to the first jury trials. On March 5, 2025, Judge Mary M. Rowland issued a sweeping case management order that sets the rules and deadlines for selecting the first wave of plaintiffs to go before a jury. These early bellwether trials will help shape the outcome of thousands of cases alleging that chemical hair straighteners caused uterine, ovarian, and endometrial cancers.
For the women who have stepped forward—many of whom used these products for years without ever being warned of the risks—this is a major step forward. The court is moving quickly. The first pool of potential trial cases will be picked by this spring. Discovery deadlines are stacked across 2025 and 2026. Expert witnesses will weigh in. And by early 2027, jurors will finally begin hearing the facts. The fight for justice is becoming a reality.
| Key Date | What Happens |
|---|---|
| October 31, 2025 | Plaintiffs reveal their expert witnesses—scientists and doctors prepared to testify that hair relaxers are linked to reproductive cancers. This is a crucial step in showing the jury that the science supports these claims. |
| December 1, 2025 | The defense responds with its own experts, many of whom will argue that there is no proven connection between hair relaxer chemicals and cancer. These reports will likely challenge the credibility of the plaintiffs’ science head-on. But defendants have an uphill climb in this litigation. |
| December 15, 2025 | Plaintiffs get one more chance to rebut, responding to the defense’s counterarguments and reinforcing their scientific evidence. |
| March 2, 2026 | All expert discovery on the issue of whether these products cause cancer must be completed. Depositions will wrap, and both sides will lock in their positions ahead of court challenges. |
| April 1, 2026 | Plaintiffs and defendants file Daubert motions, asking the judge to exclude any expert testimony that does not meet scientific standards. This is where entire cases can rise or fall, especially when science is front and center. |
| May 1, 2026 | The opposing side responds to the Daubert motions. Expect aggressive briefs defending the credibility of each side’s experts—plaintiffs will need to defend their scientists from industry attacks. |
| May 15, 2026 | Final replies are filed. The judge will soon decide which experts the jury will be allowed to hear from. These rulings will shape the tone and strategy of the upcoming trials. |
When Will the Hair Relaxer Lawsuit Be Settled?
June 18, 2025
Despite ongoing case filings in the Hair Relaxer MDL and increasing speculation about a resolution, a global settlement is not on the near horizon.
The litigation remains squarely in the discovery phase. The first bellwether trial is scheduled for November 3, 2025, with a second set for February 2, 2026. At present, both sides are immersed in corporate document production and expert discovery. Judge Mary Rowland has imposed firm deadlines for Daubert motions and dispositive challenges, indicating that the focus remains on shaping the evidentiary framework.
The bellwether pool centers on plaintiffs with uterine, ovarian, and endometrial cancer claims—injuries most strongly linked to hair relaxer exposure by the NIH Sister Study and similar research.
No explicit internal documents have surfaced admitting that the products cause cancer. But the greater concern for companies like L’Oréal USA, Strength of Nature, and Dabur may be what is missing from their records: no testing, no meaningful inquiry, and no internal analysis of the endocrine-disrupting effects of their ingredients.
The emerging picture from discovery points to longstanding corporate indifference. The absence of investigation—rather than the presence of damning admissions—may prove to be the most damaging evidence at trial.
Given this posture, significant settlement talks are unlikely until after the court rules on Daubert challenges, which will shape the scientific foundation of the case. If a settlement does emerge, it will likely come in late 2025 or early 2026.
Hair Stylists and Cosmetologists: Strong Cases Emerge
June 15, 2025: Some of the most powerful and medically supported hair relaxer lawsuits our lawyers are seeing right now are coming from professional stylists and cosmetologists.
These women spent years applying, handling, and inhaling relaxer products day in and day out. This kind of sustained, occupational exposure means they absorbed significantly larger doses of endocrine-disrupting chemicals than the average consumer. And the science shows that more exposure often means higher risk. That is especially relevant in cases involving hormone-related cancers like uterine, ovarian, and breast cancer.
Legally and scientifically, that high-frequency contact makes a huge difference. When it comes to proving that chemical hair straighteners caused someone’s cancer, the amount and duration of exposure are critical. For stylists who worked with these products for 8–10 hours a day throughout their careers, the causation argument becomes far more compelling. From a litigation standpoint, these are among the strongest claims in the entire hair relaxer MDL.
The harm extends beyond medical injuries. Many of these women built successful careers in cosmetology, only to lose everything after a cancer diagnosis or reproductive injury. Unlike consumers, stylists often cannot simply avoid future exposure and return to work. They have lost not just their health, but their livelihoods. Some are dealing with permanent complications after hysterectomies or aggressive cancer treatment. It all stems from the same core failure: manufacturers never warned them that working with these products every day could cost them their lives.
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.
Click Here for More Hair Relaxer Lawsuit Updates👈
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
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.
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.
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.</p>
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.
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.
February 11, 2025: Hair Relaxer Settlement Talks on the Horizon
Negotiations surrounding the massive Hair Relaxer MDL are moving forward as plaintiffs and defendants edge closer to settlement discussions.
Plaintiffs’ lawyers are playing it cool, but everyone wants to see these lawsuits settle and get victims some measure of justice. The plaintiffs are eager to discuss which mediator should be involved. But plaintiffs are pushing back against defendants’ demands to outline a structured mediation process at this stage.
The defense lawyers argue that before engaging in meaningful settlement talks, plaintiffs must provide a detailed theory of liability for each defendant’s role in the alleged injuries. Defendants have proposed exchanging case theories within 45 days of a mediator’s selection. All that is white noise. We need a mediator and figure out whether we can agree on numbers before a bellwether trial. It is that simple.
Despite disagreements on the procedure, both sides appear aligned on a March 20, 2025, deadline to finalize mediator selections. If successful, this move could pave the way for early-stage settlement discussions in what is expected to be a complex and high-stakes resolution process.
So as settlement talks take shape, the coming weeks will be critical in determining whether negotiations gain real momentum or whether prolonged litigation—including bellwether trials—becomes inevitable. The next key update is expected following the March 27, 2025, Case Management Conference.
Are we optimistic about a hair relaxer settlement in the next few months? No. We would love to be wrong, but history says it is hard to get a deal done until we get closer to a trial date. Obviously, we would love to be wrong.
February 2, 2025 MDL Trial Schedule Outlined
On Friday, Judge Rowland outlined a comprehensive bellwether trial plan for the hair relaxer MDL:
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| April 30, 2025 | Parties identify and exchange 20 Initial Bellwether Discovery Cases. |
| May 9, 2025 | Parties file joint status reports identifying Initial Bellwether Discovery Cases. |
| June 9, 2025 | Each Defendant serves its Answer and Affirmative Defenses to Initial Bellwether Discovery Cases. |
| September 30, 2025 | Close of oral fact discovery in the MDL. |
| October 31, 2025 | Plaintiffs disclose general causation expert reports. |
| December 1, 2025 | Defendants disclose general causation expert reports. |
| February 16, 2026 | Close of case-specific fact discovery. Deadline for parties to file position papers on cases for trial selection. |
| March 2, 2026 | Close of general causation expert discovery. Court to rule on Bellwether Trial Case selection. |
| April 1, 2026 | Deadline to file general causation Daubert motions. |
| May 1, 2026 | Close of additional case-specific fact discovery for Bellwether Trial Cases. |
| June 30, 2026 | Plaintiffs disclose case-specific and all other expert reports. |
| August 3, 2026 | Defendants disclose case-specific and all other expert reports. |
| October 16, 2026 | Close of case-specific and all other expert discovery. |
| November 16, 2026 | Deadline to file summary judgment and non-general causation Daubert motions. |
| January 6, 2027 | Replies in support of summary judgment motions due. |
So we will not have a trial in the MDL until 2027. This delay is undoubtedly frustrating for victims seeking justice. But, most likely, there will be trials moving forward in state court ahead of this schedule. Some big verdicts in state court could trip the “we need to get these lawsuits settled” wire for L’Oréal and the other defendants.
Key Directives for Bellwether Trials
- Bellwether Trials: The judge wants more cases in the bellwether trial pool. Initially, both parties agreed to select 16 cases for bellwether discovery, with five proceeding to trial. The judge is saying this number is insufficient and has increased it to 40 cases for discovery, aiming for up to 12 to proceed to trial.
- Eligibility Criteria: To streamline the selection process, the judge’s order defines “Eligible Cases” as those where plaintiffs have filed and served short-form complaints by February 1, 2024. Furthermore, only cases involving specific injuries—namely, uterine, endometrial, or ovarian cancer—will be considered for the bellwether pool. This narrows the pool to approximately 5,230 cases.
- Selection Process: Each party is tasked with selecting 20 cases for bellwether discovery. The judge set a firm deadline of April 30, 2025, for these selections, emphasizing that no extensions will be granted.
- General Causation Discovery: The court has approved a continued parallel approach, allowing expert discovery on general causation to proceed alongside case-specific discovery.
- Substitution of Settled Cases: In instances where a bellwether discovery case settles before trial selection, the court has granted plaintiffs the authority to select a replacement case unilaterally. This is a common MDL rule.
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.
November 5, 2024 – Uterine Fibroid Settlement Payouts
After a hiatus, our firm is taking uterine fibroid 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 the same settlement payouts of a cancer claim linked to hair relaxers.
September 16, 2024 – New Hair Relaxer Endometrial Cancer and Uterine Fibroids Lawsuit
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 going 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 be deducted from the client’s recovery. 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.
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:
- 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.
- 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.
- New York State Cases: Two active cases are in New York County, with motions to dismiss pending. The briefing is complete in one case, with a hearing scheduled for January 21, 2025.
- Pennsylvania State Cases: Six cases are pending in the Court of Common Pleas in Philadelphia County, with an ongoing briefing on pleading challenges. You can expect a lot more cases to start getting filed in Philadelphia.
- Canadian Cases: Two putative class actions are pending in Canada, with no class certification motions filed yet.
August 20, 2024 – Refiling Dismissed Cases
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 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 loyalty and conflict-free service standards. 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.
February 22, 2024 – Special Master for Electronic Discovery
In our last update, we discussed the Defendants’ reservation about needing 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 a fantastic judge and extremely fair.
Of course, the defendants must have some minor detail they want to emphasize. So 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 Judge Grimm’s anticipated hourly rate of around $750, the proposed cap would limit him to roughly 13 hours of work per month—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:
- Uterine cancer: the research linking the two is strong
- Endometrial cancer: our lawyers are taking Type 1 and Type 2 cases, but the link for Type 1 is stronger than Type 2
- Ovarian cancer: our lawyers are taking non-serous and serous cases, but the link for non-serous cases is stronger than for 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.
Hair Relaxer Lawsuit Questions Answered
What’s the Latest on the Hair Relaxer MDL?
When Will the Hair Relaxer Lawsuit Be Settled?
What Makes These Cases Stronger Than Some Other Product Liability Lawsuits?
Why Are Hair Stylists Filing Some of the Strongest Relaxer Lawsuits?
Why Has There Not Been a Settlement Yet?
Defendants always fight hard in the early stages of a major product liability lawsuit to avoid setting a precedent for high settlement payouts. They also want to wait to settle until more cases are past the statute of limitations. The hair relaxer MDL is still in discovery, with bellwether trials set to take place in 2027. But state court trials could happen sooner, and big verdicts will force settlements.
These companies know they’re in trouble,. But they will try to delay as long as possible to limit payouts. This is right out of the defendants in mass torts operating manual.
What Are the Projected Hair Relaxer Lawsuit Settlement Amounts?
Projected hair relaxer lawsuit settlement amounts vary based on the injury. The strongest cases—uterine, ovarian, and endometrial cancer—could see settlements between $150,000 and $750,000 per plaintiff. If bellwether trials result in massive verdicts, those numbers could go even higher. Fibroid cases will likely settle for less, but still significant amounts, especially if a hysterectomy was required.
There is a lot more explanation of our thoughts on projected hair relaxer settlement payouts below.
What Is the Best Defense Argument?
Are Hair Relaxer Lawsuits Just Another Class Action Cash Grab?
Will Revlon’s Bankruptcy Affect Hair Relaxer Lawsuit Payouts?
What’s the Biggest Myth About the Hair Relaxer Lawsuit?
How Do I Know If I Qualify for a Hair Relaxer Lawsuit?
Timeline of Hair Relaxers & Litigation
1909
Garret Augustus Morgan Develops First Hair Relaxer
African American inventor Garret Augustus Morgan discovers a chemical that straightens hair, leading to the first hair relaxer.
1920s-1950s
Rise of Commercial Hair Relaxers
Lye-based hair relaxers are marketed to Black women, using sodium hydroxide as the primary ingredient.
1970s
Introduction of No-Lye Relaxers
Guanidine hydroxide-based relaxers are introduced as a gentler alternative to traditional lye formulas.
1980s-1990s
Dominance of Hair Relaxers in Black Hair Care
Brands like Dark & Lovely, Just for Me, and Optimum Salon Haircare target both adults and children.
1990s
Concerns About Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals
Research emerges about harmful chemicals in beauty products, including hair relaxers.These studies raised concerns about the potential health impacts of these chemicals, which can interfere with hormonal systems.
2010
FDA Investigates Hair Straightening Products
The FDA and other agencies begin scrutinizing formaldehyde-releasing hair treatments.
2018
Silent Spring Institute Study
Finds that 84% of hair products marketed to Black women contain EDCs linked to increased cancer risks.
October 2022
NIH Sister Study Links Relaxers to Uterine Cancer
Women using relaxers four or more times a year have a 2.5x increased risk of developing uterine cancer. This is the study that started this litigation.
November 2022
First Lawsuits Filed Against Hair Relaxer Companies
L’Oréal and others face legal action for failing to warn users about cancer risks.
February 2023
MDL-3060 Created in Illinois
Federal cases consolidated under Judge Mary M. Rowland.
December 2023
Defendants File Motions to Dismiss
Companies argue that the lawsuit lacks specific allegations against them.
January 2024
Judge Denies Key Dismissal Motions
Cases against major defendants move forward.
October 2024
First Wrongful Death Case Filed
A Georgia woman’s family sues after her death from uterine cancer linked to relaxers.
October 2025
Expert Reports on Cancer Link
Plaintiffs present scientific evidence linking relaxers to hormone-driven cancers.
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.
Scientific Causation Evidence in Hair Relaxer Lawsuits
One of the key elements in the ongoing hair relaxer lawsuits is the growing body of scientific evidence linking the use of chemical hair straighteners to hormone-related cancers, particularly uterine and ovarian cancer
Plaintiffs will rely heavily on studies that suggest a strong correlation between the long-term use of hair relaxer products and an increased risk of cancer, particularly for Black women who are disproportionately affected due to their frequent use of these products.
The most prominent study supporting these claims is the one we talk about above—the Sister Study, conducted by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). This study followed over 33,000 women and found that those who used hair relaxers four or more times per year had a 2.4 times greater risk of developing uterine cancer compared to women who did not use these products. Moreover, the risk of ovarian cancer was found to be 50% higher for frequent users of hair relaxers.
As the litigation continues to advance, the importance of strong causation evidence will play a critical role in shaping both the settlement amounts and—if these cases get that far—jury payouts. The strength of the data supporting the connection between hair relaxer use and cancer is substantial, which is why we are so high on these cases.
Our hair relaxer attorneys are highly optimistic about where these lawsuits are going after we have been in this for over two years. We think the strong scientific evidence will lead to strong settlement amounts for victims. Whether through court victories or successful settlement negotiations, our lawyers are confident in their ability to secure justice in these claims.
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.
Our lawyers believe that a strong uterine cancer case could have an average settlement payout between $150,000 to $750,000,000. Realistically, the average settlement amount will be at the scale’s lower end. Cases involving particularly young plaintiffs could be worth significantly more since uterine cancer typically results in permanent infertility. What Will Be the Average Hair Relaxer Compensation Payout?
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.
No hair relaxer cases have gone to trial as of April 2025. The first trial will be in November 2025. In mass tort cases, settlements tend either cover all plaintiffs or groups of plaintiffs, segregated by injury or by individual law firms. Has Anyone Won a Hair Relaxer Settlement or Verdict?
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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
If you have been diagnosed with uterine cancer, ovarian cancer, endometrial cancer, or suffered from uterine fibroids requiring a hysterectomy and have a history of using chemical hair relaxers, you may qualify for the hair relaxer class action lawsuit. Our hair relaxer attorneys are also taking uterine fibroid lawsuits outside the MDL. Do I Qualify for a Hair Relaxer Lawsuit?
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.