More Than 12,000 Hair Relaxer Cancer Lawsuits Filed Against L’Oreal, Other Cosmetics Companies

Lawyers for plaintiffs and defendants are required to submit a list of only 40 hair relaxer lawsuits by the end of this month, which will be eligible for a series of early test trials.

The number of women throughout the United States pursuing hair relaxer cancer lawsuits continues to grow, with recent court filings indicating that more than 12,000 complaints have been filed against nearly a dozen different cosmetic companies, each involving similar allegations that regular use of perm kits and chemical straighteners resulted in the development of uterine cancer, endometrial cancer, ovarian cancer and other injuries.

The litigation first began to emerge in late 2022, following the publication of a landmark study that identified a link between hair relaxers and cancer, warning that some women who regularly use chemical straighteners face a 156% increased risk of uterine cancer.

Following the publication of that research and others, women began filing product liability claims against L’Oreal, Strength of Nature, SoftSheen Carson and manufacturers of other popular hair relaxer products, such as Dark & Lovely, Just For Me and Optimum. However, claims have also been presented against companies who marketed and sold less widely used products, including John Paul Mitchell Systems, Advanced Beauty and others.

Each claim raises allegations that cosmetic companies placed a desire for profits before the health and safety of African-American women, by providing false and misleading information about the health risks associated with endocrine disrupting chemicals contained in the hair relaxer products.

Due to common questions of fact and law raised in claims filed throughout the federal court system, the cases have been centralized as part of a hair relaxer lawsuit MDL (multidistrict litigation) in the Northern District of Illinois, where U.S. District Judge Mary Rowland is presiding over coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings.

To help the parties evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of their positions, and potentially drive hair relaxer settlement negotiations, Judge Rowland has directed the parties to select a total of 40 hair relaxer lawsuits involving some of the most widely used products by the end of this month. However, coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings continues to move forward against companies who sold some less widely used products, which are being referred to as “second wave” hair relaxers in the MDL.

Last week, the Plaintiff Steering Committee and “second wave” defendants submitted a joint status report (PDF), to outline a proposed schedule for discovery in cases that are not eligible for the first bellwether trials. The schedule was adopted by Judge Rowland in a docket entry (PDF) issued on April 14.

According to the report, the MDL now includes a total of more than 12,000 hair relaxer cancer lawsuits against all of the different manufacturers. However, the “second wave” defendants typically only face between a few dozen and a few hundred claims each. 

Lawyers representing plaintiffs and all of the different manufacturers are scheduled to meet with Judge Rowland for a status conference next week, on April 24. In a separate court order (PDF) issued last week, Judge Rowland called for an overall status report on the litigation to be filed this week. 

Under the current bellwether schedule, the parties have been directed to exchange a list of 20 cases each by April 30, for a total of 40 claims that will form the initial bellwether discovery pool. Each side will then be able to strike four cases from the other party’s list, resulting in 32 hair relaxer lawsuits, which will be identified in a joint status report due on May 9, 2025.

The parties will then engage in case-specific discovery in those claims, including depositions of parties and witnesses, as well as expert workup to prepare them for a series of early test trial dates.

While the outcome of these early trials will not be binding on other women presenting other claims, they will be closely watched by lawyers involved in the litigation and may have a substantial impact on the timing and average amounts of any hair relaxer settlements offered to women diagnosed with uterine cancer, endometrial cancer and ovarian cancer in future years.

If the hair relaxer settlement talks do not result in any global resolution following the bellwether trials, it is likely that Judge Rowland will begin remanding each claim back to various different U.S. District Courts for individual trials in the coming years.