Judge To Meet With Hair Dye Lawyers in Bladder Cancer Lawsuit for Initial Status Conference

Court has placed a stay on proceedings in the hair dye bladder cancer lawsuit until the presiding Judge is briefed on the case and establishes a pretrial schedule.

As a growing number of cosmetologists and hair dressers continue to file lawsuits against manufacturers of widely used salon hair dye products, alleging that exposure to chemicals in the hair dye caused them to develop bladder cancer, a state court judge presiding over one of the first claims filed is expected to meet with lawyers later this week, for an initial status conference.

The litigation has been sparked by recent scientific research, which has revealed that prolonged contact with certain chemicals found in hair dye increases bladder cancer risks for salon workers, with some findings suggesting that individuals who regularly come into contact with the chemicals may have a 30% higher risk of developing the cancer, including exposure from aromatic amines.

Researchers warn that these chemicals can be absorbed through the skin or inhaled over time, making occupational exposure a significant risk factor for those in the industry.

Beatrice Singleton brought one of the first hair dye lawsuits in late April, alleging that her 40 years of exposure to popular hair dyes as a cosmetologist resulted in a bladder cancer diagnosis. The lawsuit named several major cosmetics companies as defendants, some of which include John Paul Mitchell Systems, Clairol, L’Oreal and Bristol-Myers Squibb.

Singleton argues that the manufacturers of the hair dye products were negligent in designing, manufacturing, and marketing the products, failing to warn her and other hairdressers about the risks of bladder cancer, and failing to issue hair dye recalls when they learned the risks of long-term exposure.

The lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court of California in Los Angeles County, and has been assigned to Judge Samatha Jessner, who issued an order (PDF) last month scheduling the Initial Status Conference for June 20, 2025.

Hair dye lawyers are expected to meet with Judge Jessner at the Spring Street Courthouse, and they have been ordered to submit a Joint Statement in advance of the conference outlining issues ripe for discussion with the Court.

As the litigation gets underway, it is expected that the parties will bring the judge up-to-date on the nature of the case, the claims and defenses, whether any party intends to challenge jurisdiction, and provisions for preserving evidence.

“The Initial Status Conference Order is to help the Court and the parties manage this complex case by developing an orderly schedule for briefing, discovery, and court hearings,” Judge Jessner wrote in a court minutes order (PDF). “The parties are informally encouraged to exchange documents and information as may be useful to case evaluation.”

The order also places a stay on the filing and service of pleadings, and all discovery proceedings, until further notice.

June 2025 Hair Dye Lawsuit Update

With discovery and pretrial proceedings set to get underway in some of the earliest cases filed, additional claims are expected to be brought over the coming weeks and months, as hair dye lawyers continue to investigate potential claims for cosmetologists, hair dressers and other salon workers.

Lawsuits allege that cases of bladder cancer were directly caused by various different known carcinogens and endocrine disrupting chemicals in hair dye products, such as formaldehyde, 4-Aminobiphenyl (4-ABP) and Ortho-Toluidine, all of which are classified as human carcinogens by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and the National Toxicology Program (NTP).

Given common questions of fact and law presented in dozens of separate claims filed in California state court, it is expected that the court may establish a coordinated pretrial schedule to manage discovery and a process for preparing bellwether cases for early trial dates, to help gauge how juries may respond to certain evidence and testimony that may be repeated throughout hundreds of claims in the future.

Plaintiffs allege that they may have avoided a bladder cancer diagnosis from hair dye products if the manufacturer had adequately disclosed the risks associated with their products, even when salon workers wear gloves or take other precautionary measures.