Class Action Claims Over Hair Relaxer Risks Cleared To Move Forward by MDL Judge

Court rejected a motion to dismiss the hair relaxer class action lawsuits, which seek economic damages and medical monitoring for consumers exposed to cancer-causing chemicals in several widely used products.

The U.S. District Judge presiding over all hair relaxer lawsuits filed in the federal court system, has rejected an attempt to dismiss class action claims being pursued against several cosmetics companies, including L’Oreal, Revlon and others, allowing the litigation to move forward.

According to a docket report (PDF) released on October 1, there are currently at least 8,400 product liability lawsuits being pursued by women who indicate that they developed uterine cancer, ovarian cancer or other injuries after exposure to endocrine disrupting chemicals in Dark & Lovely, Just for Me, Optimum, ORS Olive Oil and other chemical hair straighteners, which have been frequently used by African American women for decades.

However, the manufacturers also face a number of class action lawsuits over the hair relaxer risks, which are being pursued on behalf of consumers who have not yet suffered any physical injury, but allege they were sold a defective and dangerous product that may put their health at risk for years to come. These complaints seek economic damages, as well as funding for medical monitoring in the future.

About a dozen different class action claims have been merged into one consolidated class action before U.S. District Judge Mary Rowland, who is overseeing the consolidated pretrial proceedings for all federal hair relaxer lawsuits as part of a multidistrict litigation (MDL) in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

The litigation emerged in late 2022, following the publication of a study that highlighted a link between use of hair relaxers and uterine cancer, finding that women who regularly used the products face a 156% increased risk compared to women who did not use hair relaxers.

As a result of those findings, women throughout the U.S. began filing Dark & Lovely lawsuits, Just for Me lawsuits and similar claims against the makers of other popular hair relaxers, each raising similar allegations that a desire for profits was placed before the health of consumers.

In early February, defendants filed a motion to dismiss class action lawsuits over the toxic hair relaxer chemicals, arguing that the claims for economic harm are preempted by federal law, and that plaintiffs have not alleged sufficient claim of injury to pursue a nationwide class action.

In March, plaintiffs responded, indicating that the arguments being put forward by the manufacturers have already been addressed by the Court, and should be rejected.

In separate orders issued on September 27, Judge Rowland primarily sided with plaintiffs, clearing the class action lawsuits over hair relaxer risks  to proceed.

In one memorandum and order (PDF), Judge Rowland pruned a couple of the plaintiffs’ claims, mostly due to the particulars of laws in certain states, while overall rejecting defendants’ arguments that plaintiffs lacked standing and had not sufficiently filed the complaints.

In another order (PDF), she rejected defendants motion to dismiss the class allegations and efforts to recoup punitive damages, which are intended to punish the manufacturers for recklessly disregarding the health and safety of consumers.

“The Court declines to strike Plaintiffs’ punitive damages allegations,” Judge Rowland wrote. “Plaintiffs allege more than bare allegations of willful and malicious conduct…and the Court previously found similar allegations were sufficient to seek punitive damages.”

October 2024 Hair Relaxer Lawsuit Update

As the class action lawsuits over hair relaxers move forward, the court is continuing with efforts to prepare a group of personal injury or wrongful death lawsuits for early trial dates in the MDL.

In November 2023, Judge Rowland ordered the parties to propose competing hair relaxer lawsuit bellwether trial plans, outlining a process for selecting a small group of bellwether cases that will go through case-specific discovery in preparation for early trial dates, which are unlikely to make it before a jury until at least 2026.

Though the outcomes of each individual trial are not binding on other personal injury lawsuits in the MDL, the average hair relaxer lawsuit payouts in these early test cases will have a substantial impact on the amount of money the manufacturers may be required to pay to avoid the need for thousands of individual cases to go before separate juries nationwide.

Following coordinated discovery in the MDL and any early bellwether trials, if the parties fail to negotiate hair relaxer settlements for individuals diagnosed with uterine cancer, endometrial cancer, ovarian cancer and other complications, Judge Rowland may later remand each individual lawsuit directly filed in the MDL back to the U.S. District Court where it would have originated for a separate trial.