L’Oreal Faces State AG Lawsuit Over Cancer Risks From Hair Relaxers

Amid litigation involving thousands of hair relaxer cancer claims, Arizona is the first state to file a lawsuit demanding the products carry cancer risk warnings.

Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes has filed a consumer fraud lawsuit alleging L’Oréal failed to warn women that chemical hair relaxers like Dark & Lovely may increase the risk of uterine and ovarian cancer, while seeking court-ordered warning labels on the products.

Mayes issued a press release on September 11 announcing the filing of a consumer fraud lawsuit (PDF) in Arizona Superior Court in Maricopa County. The complaint names L’Oreal USA Inc., L’Oreal USA Products Inc., L’Oreal S.A. and Softsheen-Carson LLC as defendants.

Hair Relaxer Cancer Risks

The Arizona lawsuit comes amid thousands of individual hair relaxer cancer lawsuits filed by women nationwide who developed uterine cancer, ovarian cancer and other reproductive injuries after years of using chemical hair straighteners.

Those lawsuits allege manufacturers failed to adequately warn that hair relaxers may expose users to chemicals, including phthalates, parabens and formaldehyde-releasing chemicals, that may disrupt hormones and contribute to the development of cancers involving reproductive organs.

More than 12,000 claims have been filed in the federal court system following an October 2022 study published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, which found that women who used hair relaxers more than four times per year had a 156% increased risk of developing uterine cancer. Even women who reported using the products between one and four times per year had a 54% increased risk.

Plaintiffs also allege hair relaxers were heavily marketed toward women of color, while manufacturers failed to adequately disclose the potential long-term health risks associated with repeated use.

L’Oreal Hair Relaxer Cancer Allegations

The Arizona Attorney General’s lawsuit accuses L’Oreal and SoftSheen of advertising their products to the state’s residents without warning them that the products contained likely carcinogens. The lawsuit alleges that the chemicals in the products are highly alkaline and may lead to the formation of toxic compounds when applied to the scalp as directed.

The state alleges the manufacturers knew for decades that chemicals used in their hair relaxers were toxic and potentially carcinogenic, pointing to research dating back to at least the 1970s. Mayes argues that, because the companies also knew exactly which chemicals were used in their products and at what concentrations, they possessed critical safety information that consumers were never given.

“L’Oréal knew or should have known about the dangers associated with these toxic hair straightening products. Yet, instead of warning their consumers, they put profits over the safety of women and children. That is unacceptable and we will hold them accountable for it.”

– Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes

The lawsuit presents claims of violations of the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act. It seeks civil penalties for all violations found, restitution, disgorgement and injunctive relief blocking the sale of L’Oreal and SoftSheen products in the state without proper cancer risk label warnings.

Hair Relaxer Cancer Lawsuits

While Arizona is the first state to file a hair relaxer lawsuit, thousands of lawsuits have been consolidated into a multidistrict litigation (MDL) in the Northern District of Illinois before U.S. District Judge Mary Rowland, who is overseeing the litigation through coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings.

Judge Rowland has directed plaintiffs’ and defendants’ counsel to prepare 32 hair relaxer lawsuits for potential bellwether trials, intended to help the court and parties evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of their claims, potentially facilitating settlement negotiations to resolve the litigation. That number was reduced to 10 cases by Judge Rowland in April, but no bellwether trial dates have yet been announced.

Although the bellwether trial results will not be binding on other plaintiffs, they may help both sides evaluate the strength and potential value of similar claims and determine whether broader settlement discussions are possible.

If the bellwether process and other pretrial proceedings do not lead to a settlement or other resolution, Judge Rowland may eventually remand individual cases back to their originating federal courts for separate trial dates.

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