Hair Relaxer Manufacturers Push for Evidence Many Plaintiffs Did Not Likely Keep

As women push forward with hair relaxer lawsuits over the development of uterine cancer or ovarian cancer, cosmetics companies seek proof of purchase, product containers and other records dating back years.

Lawyers involved in the federal hair relaxer lawsuits are scheduled to meet tomorrow with the U.S. District Judge presiding over the litigation, to review progress and disputes over the level of evidence women should be required to provide, as part of their claim that manufacturers failed to adequately warn about cancer risks associated with popular chemical straighteners widely used by African American women and other minorities.

L’Oreal, Namasté Laboratories and other major cosmetics manufacturers face nearly 11,000 product liability lawsuits, each raising similar allegations that they withheld information about the link between cancer and hair relaxers, including popular products like Just for Me, Dark & Lovely, Optimum and others.

The wave of lawsuits began after a 2022 National Institutes of Health study found that chemical hair straighteners significantly increased the risk of uterine cancer. Subsequent research has linked ingredients commonly found in these products, such as phthalates, parabens and formaldehyde-releasing agents, to hormonal disruption and tumor growth in reproductive tissues.

In addition to hair relaxer uterine cancer lawsuits, plaintiffs have also brought claims over the development of other reproductive side effects, including ovarian cancer.

To more efficiently handle the rapidly growing litigation, a hair relaxer MDL, or multidistrict litigation, was formed in the Northern District of Illinois in 2023, and U.S. District Judge Mary Rowland has been appointed to preside over coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings.

As part of the management of the litigation, Judge Rowland has directed the parties to prepare 32 hair relaxer lawsuits to serve as potential bellwether cases for a series of early trial dates. These trials are designed to give the parties a sense of how juries are likely to respond to evidence and testimony that would be repeated throughout the litigation.

Tomorrow, Judge Rowland is scheduled to meet with attorneys for both sides to review the status of the litigation and the ongoing collection of evidence for the bellwether trials, including whether plaintiffs can establish a link between chemical hair relaxers and their cancer diagnoses.

Ahead of the status conference, the parties filed a joint status report (PDF) on December 5, which indicates that defendants expect to finish deposing all bellwether plaintiffs by early January. Defendants are also pressing for extensive documentation from these women, including medical records, old hair relaxer product containers and photographs from many years earlier, materials most consumers would not reasonably keep unless they anticipated future litigation.

The report shows that these difficulties often stem from the ordinary way chemical straighteners were used and discarded for decades. Bellwether Plaintiff Eunice Felton testified that older photographs documenting her relaxer use were stored away in family albums kept in a storage unit, and she had not reviewed them because she never expected they would become evidence.

Rosa M. Robinson, another bellwether plaintiff, testified that she has “hundreds” of personal photographs on her phone dating back decades, but did not understand that all of them would be required for production until the issue surfaced during her deposition.

In other cases, women alluded that any product packaging or containers they once had were discarded as normal household waste, since there was no reason to believe they might one day be needed in litigation.

Despite these practical challenges, defendants are asking for show cause hearings, seeking those who have not produced the proper evidence to have their cases dismissed. Plaintiffs called the request an “improper, last-minute motion practice” that should be rejected by the Court. They claim it is a ploy by defendants to extend the bellwether discovery schedule.

Hair Relaxer Lawsuits Science Day

The report also indicates that the parties have scheduled a Science Day for January 8, during which both sides will provide the Court with an overview of the scientific and medical issues at the center of the hair relaxer litigation. Science Days are common in complex product liability MDLs and are designed as non-adversarial educational sessions, allowing judges to hear from experts and receive background explanations on topics such as chemical exposures, hormonal disruption and cancer causation.

Although the presentations are not part of the official evidentiary record and are not subject to cross-examination, they often play a critical role in shaping the Court’s understanding of the science. This background can influence future rulings on what expert testimony will be permitted at trial, how causation standards will be applied and what evidence juries will ultimately be allowed to hear during bellwether cases.

While the outcome of any early test trials will not be binding on other claims, they will be closely watched by the parties and are expected to heavily influence any negotiations to reach hair relaxer lawsuit settlements, which may be necessary to avoid the need for thousands of individual trials to be scheduled in courts nationwide in the coming years.

To stay up to date on this litigation, sign up to receive hair relaxer lawsuit updates sent directly to your inbox.