Hair Relaxer Lawsuit Updates (2025)

Plaintiffs in the Hair Relaxer MDL assert that defendants have not fully provided key product information, causing prolonged delays. They propose a December 20, 2024, cutoff for complete data, citing lengthy waits and missing details. Defendants insist they have acted fairly and attribute any delays to outdated systems and complex files. A status conference this week may address these disagreements as the case moves closer to trial.

In Revlon’s Chapter 11 proceedings, Judge Rowland denied the company’s motion to dismiss certain cancer-related lawsuits linked to its hair relaxer products. The court ruled that dismissing all claims with prejudice was too severe for plaintiffs lacking a confirmed cancer diagnosis at the time of filing. Cancer claims filed by September 14, 2023, were dismissed without prejudice, allowing refiling within six months of a diagnosis. However, non-cancer injury claims from these plaintiffs were dismissed with prejudice.

After a pause, our firm has resumed accepting uterine fibroid claims, with hundreds signed up in recent months. We anticipate these cases may ultimately reach settlement, though they likely won’t carry the same value as higher-profile claims, such as those linking hair relaxers to cancer. If you believe you have a case, contact us to discuss your options.

In the past month, over 1,000 new cases joined the chemical relaxer MDL, marking its largest monthly increase and bringing the total to 9,488. This surge reflects sustained momentum as plaintiffs allege serious health risks linked to the products. The growing caseload heightens pressure on defendants, pushing the litigation toward key stages that could impact settlement approaches or trial outcomes.

A new wrongful death lawsuit in MDL-3060 alleges that prolonged use of hair relaxer products led to a Georgia woman’s death from uterine cancer. The suit names L’Oréal USA, Inc., SoftSheen-Carson LLC, and others, claiming the products contained harmful chemicals that were inadequately tested and labeled. The plaintiff seeks damages for wrongful death, survival action, loss of consortium, and punitive damages, citing negligence and failure to warn.

In August, 200 new cases were filed in the chemical hair relaxer class action MDL. By September, the case count decreased as 98 cases were withdrawn, bringing the total number of active cases down to 8,393.

An Indianapolis woman has filed a lawsuit against hair relaxer manufacturers, including L’Oréal, SoftSheen-Carson, and Strength of Nature. She claims that using their products, such as Dark and Lovely and Optimum Salon Haircare, from the 1970s to 2018 led to her endometrial cancer diagnosis in 2021. The lawsuit alleges the products contained harmful chemicals that increased her cancer risk. It cites negligence, design defects, failure to warn, and breach of warranty. The plaintiff is seeking compensatory and punitive damages and has requested a jury trial.

Though it's difficult to predict the exact timeline, mass tort cases often settle before the first bellwether trial. With the initial trial set for November 2025, negotiations are expected to intensify as that date approaches. Defendants typically aim to avoid the risks of trial, making a potential settlement likely in mid-2025. However, this depends on whether the trial dates remain unchanged.

While it’s impossible to predict exactly when the hair relaxer lawsuit will settle, based on the timeline of mass tort cases, a settlement is likely before the first bellwether trial. The initial trial is set for November 2025, and legal teams on both sides may feel pressure to settle as the date nears. If defendants are hesitant to face trial, a settlement could occur around summer 2025, assuming no delays. Both parties will likely seek to avoid the risks of a full trial.

Namasté Laboratories has requested a protective order to block plaintiffs from holding a 30(b)(6) deposition on custodial files of former employees, stating these files were deleted before any legal duty to preserve them. The company provided affidavits to support this, arguing a deposition would be burdensome and unnecessary. However, plaintiffs insist the deposition is needed to clarify when and how the files were deleted, as the affidavits lack key details. Concerns about transparency have been raised due to Namasté's resistance to further investigation.

A North Carolina woman has filed a lawsuit against L’Oréal SoftSheen-Carson and Luster Products, claiming their hair relaxers caused her to develop endometrial cancer. She alleges that the companies were negligent in product design and failed to warn users of the cancer risks associated with long-term use. The plaintiff used the products from 1971 to 2018.

The Plaintiffs’ Leadership Committee has asked the court to impose an 8% "common benefit fee holdback" on cases outside the MDL, to compensate lawyers whose work benefits all plaintiffs. This fee would come from attorneys' fees, even in cases not part of the MDL. Additionally, they propose a 3% holdback for MDL expenses, typically taken from the client’s recovery, though leadership may adjust this to avoid disputes. The 8% would come from attorney fees, while the 3% would impact settlements, such as those in hair relaxer cases.

Following several slow months, the hair relaxer MDL experienced a surge in August with over 200 new cases, raising the total number of pending cases to 8,489.

Revlon has responded to the plaintiffs' motion from August 26, arguing that the request to compel discovery completion is both unnecessary and premature. The company asserts it has made significant efforts to meet discovery demands and has cooperated fully with the plaintiffs. Revlon criticizes the plaintiffs' use of overly broad search terms, which has led to an overwhelming volume of documents to review. The company claims it has been transparent about the challenges in this process and contends that the plaintiffs' motion misrepresents its efforts. Additionally, Revlon argues that the plaintiffs' request for a court order certifying document production is inappropriate and would impose an excessive burden.

Pending Motions: Several motions are currently under review, including Defendants’ motions to dismiss and strike class allegations, Plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss non-cancer cases, and a motion against L’Oréal for non-compliance with discovery orders.

New Defendants: Progress was reported on cases involving new defendants, with some motions to dismiss still pending and others settled.

Discovery Issues: Ongoing discovery challenges were highlighted, including the recent motion against Revlon discussed earlier, as well as the need for court-ordered deadlines for Strength of Nature and Namasté Laboratories.

Subpoena to NIH: Revlon’s subpoena to the NIH is progressing, with discussions ongoing regarding the handling of the data.

Electronic Discovery: Efforts to finalize search terms and methodologies for electronic document production are ongoing, with continuing disputes, particularly involving L’Oréal.

Plaintiff Fact Sheets: The process of gathering plaintiff medical records is ongoing, with attention to non-compliant plaintiffs. Plaintiffs are urged to ensure their fact sheets are completed promptly to avoid jeopardizing their claims.

Plaintiffs have filed a motion to compel Revlon to meet its discovery obligations after failing to produce documents by the August 9, 2024, deadline. They request the court to order Revlon to complete the review of 900,000 pages by September 15, 2024, and certify substantial completion. Plaintiffs also seek potential sanctions if Revlon fails to comply.

Cook County, Illinois:

• Cases Filed: 57
• Status: 44 cases have been consolidated before Judge Patrick T. Stanton for motion practice and discovery. Four bellwether cases have completed briefing on motions to dismiss, with rulings pending. Discovery is currently stayed until these rulings are made. Five cases may be set for trial in 2025, with the next status conference scheduled for August 28, 2024. Thirteen additional cases are pending consolidation, which is on hold until after the August 28 hearing.

Georgia State Cases:

• Chatham County: 20 cases have been consolidated before Judge Derek J. White. These cases are stayed pending an appeal in the Burroughs v. L’Oreal USA, Inc. case, which centers on a statute of repose issue.
• DeKalb County: Seven cases are pending, with ongoing briefing on motions to dismiss. Plaintiffs are seeking to consolidate these cases under Judge Alvin T. Wong.

New York State Cases:

• Location: New York County
• Status: Two active cases are ongoing, with motions to dismiss pending. Briefing is complete in one case, and a hearing is scheduled for January 21, 2025.

Pennsylvania State Cases:

• Location: Philadelphia County, Court of Common Pleas
• Status: Six cases are pending, with ongoing briefing on pleading challenges. An increase in filings in Philadelphia is anticipated.

Canadian Cases:

• Status: Two putative class actions are pending in Canada. No motions for class certification have been filed yet.

The MDL is currently focusing on cancer cases, specifically ovarian, uterine, and endometrial cancers. Plaintiffs' lawyers are asking the court to dismiss without prejudice all non-cancer-related lawsuits, many of which were rushed to meet Revlon bankruptcy deadlines and contain inaccuracies in medical diagnoses. Some plaintiffs initially believed their conditions were cancerous but later found they were not. To preserve potential future claims, plaintiffs' lawyers seek the option to refile these cases if necessary. Defendants, however, are pushing for permanent dismissal. If the parties cannot reach an agreement, the court is expected to hold a hearing and issue a ruling, likely in September.

L'Oreal is resisting discovery requests in the hair relaxer litigation. Despite previous court orders, the company claims its French parent company is exempt from discovery. Plaintiffs have filed a motion to enforce the original order.

Despite recognizing the cancer risks, the FDA has postponed a proposed ban on formaldehyde and other harmful chemicals in hair relaxers until at least September. This delay highlights the ongoing need for regulatory action to protect consumers from hazardous substances in beauty products.

Formaldehyde, a known carcinogen, poses significant health risks, including respiratory issues and increased cancer likelihood with prolonged exposure. The FDA proposed this ban in October 2023 but has delayed its implementation, citing the complexity of such a ban. Critics argue that the health risks outweigh the business and cosmetic implications, calling for more decisive action.

Hair relaxer lawyers have submitted a Joint ESI Discovery Status Report, outlining ongoing negotiations on electronic document production methodologies. Here’s a recap of the key defendants and the current status:

• Revlon: 109 search terms agreed. Document reviews to start by August 1, 2024, with rolling production.
• L’Oréal USA: Near agreement on search terms and custodians; addressing data storage issues.
• Luster Products, Inc.: Cooperative negotiations on legacy backup tapes.
• Avlon Industries, Inc.: Discussing 460 search terms; expected to finalize by end of July, followed by rolling production.
• House of Cheatham, LLC: Collaborating on search terms; plaintiffs push for immediate document production.
• Namaste Laboratories LLC: Significant progress on search terms; hit report expected by July 17, 2024, further negotiations planned.
• Strength of Nature LLC: Agreed on 207 search terms; continue negotiating remaining terms with hit reports aiding discussions.
• Sally Beauty Supply LLC: Agreed TAR Protocol signed in May; documents produced on a rolling basis.
• McBride Research Laboratories: Ongoing negotiations on proposed search terms; further discussions planned.

Plaintiffs urge immediate document review by defendants using agreed-upon search terms to avoid delays.

A Michigan woman has filed a new lawsuit in the MDL against L’Oréal, Strength of Nature, and Luster Products. She alleges that her use of these companies' hair relaxer products led to her diagnosis of endometrial cancer in February 2021.

Selective Way Insurance has asked a Georgia federal judge to exempt it from defending House of Cheatham in the cancer-causing hair relaxers MDL. The insurer claims that House of Cheatham’s 2021 asset transfer from a corporation to an LLC did not include insurance coverage, as Selective Way did not consent to the policy assignment.

Despite this, House of Cheatham insists its insurance coverage should continue. Both plaintiff and defense lawyers support maximizing insurance payouts to secure settlements and cover defense costs. Insurance contributions would reduce the financial burden on defendants and potentially increase compensation for plaintiffs, prompting opposition from the insurance companies.

A Georgia woman's lawsuit against L'Oréal, claiming the company failed to warn consumers about toxic chemicals in hair relaxers, will proceed. The Georgia Court of Appeals rejected L'Oréal's arguments based on Georgia's Statute of Repose and Federal preemption law.

Key Points:

• Court Ruling: The Georgia trial court found Kiara Burroughs' lawsuit was not preempted by Federal law and had sufficient grounds to survive a motion to dismiss. Burroughs claims she developed uterine fibroids from using the chemical hair relaxers.
• State Court Strategy: Active hair relaxer lawsuit dockets exist in Georgia and Illinois (Cook County). Lawyers often file in state courts to mitigate risks from adverse MDL rulings.
• Case Focus: Some attorneys pursue fibroid cases leading to hysterectomy in state courts, considering these claims valuable, especially for women in their childbearing years. The plaintiff's leadership stopped accepting fibroid cases in the MDL last year, but hysterectomy claims are actively pursued in Cook County, Illinois.

In May 2024, two overlapping hair relaxer lawsuits were addressed. One case, initially filed in California, was transferred to the MDL, and another was filed directly in the MDL with additional Revlon entities involved. The judge ordered the incorporation of the second case's Short Form Complaint into the first. The plaintiff's attorney must now report if the second case can be dismissed. The judge also mandated formal motions for future requests, criticizing the use of email for official communications.

The hair relaxer class action MDL decreased by nearly 300 cases in the past month. This reduction is due to plaintiffs choosing not to pursue non-cancer injury cases. The total number of pending cases is now 8,170.

A dispute has emerged over Court Management Order No. 9 (CMO 9) in the hair relaxer litigation. Plaintiffs’ lawyers report receiving new Deficiency Letters from defendants, despite CMO 9’s rule against this after a plaintiff's initial response. Defendants argue these letters address the "substantial completion" of Plaintiff Fact Sheets (PFS). Plaintiffs contend this practice contradicts CMO 9’s intent to streamline the process and may exclude many plaintiffs from bellwether trials by marking them as non-compliant.

Plaintiffs' lawyers request the court's permission to dismiss certain cancer-related cases without prejudice, allowing them to be refiled later. These cases involve plaintiffs who initially believed they had ovarian, uterine, or endometrial cancer but later found out they did not. Many lawsuits were hastily filed due to Revlon's bankruptcy rules, which required victims to file or lose their right to sue. Attorneys now seek dismissal without prejudice to avoid being barred from refiling if these plaintiffs develop the covered cancers in the future.

The court today demanded defendants clarify Maura Grossman's lack of conflicts in her proposed role as special master. They must provide their attorney's name, law firm, and details of defendants involved in unrelated TAR discussions with Grossman.

Additionally, outcomes of the hair relaxer lawsuits might pivot more on the absence of proactive responses to potential carcinogenic risks than on direct evidence.

The hair relaxer class action MDL experienced a sluggish April, with only 81 new cases added—up from 53 in March but still far below the high of 3,000 cases added in a single month last year. The total number of pending cases now stands at 8,468.

Hair relaxer class action MDL appears to have exited its growth phase, with just 53 new cases added in the past month. This continuation of a five-month trend of declining new case volumes suggests a plateau. The MDL currently comprises 8,387 pending lawsuits.

In a recent ruling, the court dismissed L’Oréal's attempt to reconsider a discovery order involving its foreign affiliate, L’Oréal S.A., over the production of documents related to hair relaxer lawsuits. Despite L’Oréal's objections based on alleged factual inaccuracies and concerns over violating the French blocking statute, the court found their arguments unconvincing, granting only an extension for logistical coordination between L’Oréal USA and L’Oréal S.A. The pursuit for potentially revealing documents continues amidst speculation about L’Oréal's resistance to disclosure.

In the hair relaxer MDL, discussions in February led to the appointment of retired Judge Paul Grimm as Special Master to assist with resolving technical disputes. While both parties agreed on Grimm, defendants are pushing for a monthly fee cap of $10,000, equating to about 13 hours at $750 per hour, to control costs—a move plaintiffs oppose. Additionally, the MDL grew by 117 cases in February, bringing the total to 8,334 federal lawsuits.

The hair relaxer litigation is intensifying with lawyers battling over the production of documents. A hearing was held by Judge Sheila M. Finnegan to discuss hiring a Special Master with expertise in Electronic Stored Information (ESI).

The hair relaxer class action MDL has added 191 new cases in January 2024, bringing the total to 8,217 pending cases. This establishes a new average volume, contrasting with the previous surge of 2,000 to 3,000 new cases per month observed last summer.

As of January 15, 2024, there has been a notable increase in the hair relaxer Multi-District Litigation (MDL):

• New Case Additions: In the past month, 42 new cases have been filed.
• Total Pending Cases: The MDL now comprises a total of 8,026 pending cases.

In a significant development in the MDL class action process, initial bellwether trials have been scheduled:

First Trial Date: The initial bellwether trial is set for November 3, 2025.

Second Trial Date: A subsequent trial is planned for February 2, 2026.

While these dates may appear far off, they are typical in the timeline of complex MDL class actions. Understandably, this lengthy process can be a source of frustration for both plaintiffs and lawyers. However, the scheduling of these bellwether trials plays a crucial role:

Pressure on Defendants: The approach of trial dates often creates a sense of urgency for defendants to consider settlement offers.

Potential for Early Settlements: There is hope that reasonable compensation will be extended to victims well before these trials commence.

Significance of Bellwether Trials: These initial trials serve as test cases, offering vital insights into jury reactions to presented evidence and arguments. The outcomes can significantly influence settlement negotiations for the remaining cases within the MDL, with substantial verdicts often correlating to larger overall settlement values.

The hair relaxer class action Multi-District Litigation (MDL) saw a notable decrease in its growth rate, with only 17 new cases added over the last month. This marks a significant drop compared to the average of over 2,000 new cases per month observed since the summer. Currently, the MDL stands at 7,984 pending cases, and this recent decline may indicate that the growth phase for hair relaxer cases is nearing its end.

Attorneys representing plaintiffs in the hair relaxer Multi-District Litigation (MDL) are petitioning the court for an 11% holdback from the compensation awarded to plaintiffs. This proposed figure is substantial, reflecting the significant efforts and resources invested by the legal teams in the case.

During Friday's status conference for the hair relaxer class action MDL, overseen by Judge Mary M. Rowland in Illinois, several important developments emerged:

New Briefing Schedule: Judge Rowland requested the parties to establish a consensus on a revised briefing schedule for a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, with a deadline set for November 28, 2023.

Science Day Scheduling Conflict: There is ongoing contention regarding the scheduling of Science Day. Parties are required to present their arguments in cross briefs by December 6, 2023.

Case Management Order (CMO) Progress: The parties are actively collaborating on a CMO concerning the Plaintiffs’ Fact Sheets and Records Authorizations and will notify the court upon its finalization.

Update on State Court Lawsuits: Defendants provided an update on similar lawsuits in state courts, though no specific court action was requested.

Document Production for International Sales: For products sold outside the U.S., cross briefs are due by December 6, 2023. Additionally, Revlon is required to clarify its discovery stance by November 27, 2023.

Document Production Deadlines: Revlon must respond to two Requests for Production by December 15, 2023. Similarly, Avalon is expected to provide a complete ingredient list in response to the Plaintiffs’ Interrogatory 6 by the same date.

ESI Discovery Referred to Magistrate Judge: The court has referred all Electronic Stored Information (ESI) discovery and related disputes to Magistrate Judge Finnegan, without mandating the defendants to reveal all systems used during the relevant timeframe.

The hair relaxer class action Multi-District Litigation (MDL) has experienced a dramatic increase in case volume, now approaching nearly 8,000 pending cases. In the last month alone, an additional 2,000 cases were added to the MDL. This surge in litigation activity has seen an average of around 500 new cases being filed each week since the end of August, marking a significant escalation from just 21 cases recorded back in February. This rapid growth underscores the expanding reach and intensifying nature of the legal proceedings in this MDL.

Judge Mary Rowland has delivered a significant ruling in the ongoing class action lawsuit against major hair relaxer manufacturers. Contrary to the defendants' expectations, the MDL judge has rejected their motion to dismiss, particularly dismissing their preemption argument. This decision affirms that federal law does not override the plaintiffs' state law claims, including those pertaining to negligence and product liability.

Although the court did dismiss the fraud claims for not meeting the specificity required by Rule 9(b), it has allowed the progression of claims related to unfair practices. Notably, the potential for punitive damages remains a part of the lawsuit, significantly influencing its settlement value. Additionally, claims under state law warranties and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act have been deemed sufficient to proceed. This ruling marks a crucial victory, reinforcing the momentum of the litigation as it moves forward.

In the ongoing hair relaxer litigation, the leadership team has proposed an 11% deduction from the gross settlement or verdict amount in every case associated with the hair relaxer lawsuits. This proposed holdback is structured with two distinct allocations: 8% is intended to cover the costs of common benefit work undertaken by the attorneys, and the remaining 3% is aimed at reimbursing expenses incurred for the same. While this proposal raises questions about the appropriateness of the percentage being earmarked, it's important to clarify that this deduction impacts only the portion of the fees that go to the lawyers spearheading the litigation. It does not affect the actual compensation amount that plaintiffs will receive for their individual hair relaxer cancer claims.

In light of the surge in cancer lawsuits linked to hair relaxers, the FDA has stepped forward with a proposal to outlaw formaldehyde in all hair relaxing products. Historically prevalent in numerous hair straightening formulations, formaldehyde is recognized for its toxicity and potential to induce various cancers, leukemia included. It's crucial to note, though, that formaldehyde hasn't been connected to ovarian or uterine cancers, the primary focus of the current wave of hair relaxer litigation.

The momentum is building in the hair relaxer class action arena, confirming our initial projections. An astounding 3,752 new cases were introduced to the MDL over the past month alone, escalating the current tally of ongoing lawsuits within the hair relaxer MDL to 5,996. This surge is particularly striking when considering that back in June 2023, the figure hovered at under 200 pending cases.

In the recent MDL status conference, Judge Rowland delivered her decisions on a series of contested discovery issues, primarily ruling in the plaintiffs' favor. Her directives included mandating the defendants to furnish documents beyond their immediate physical possession and dismissing their resistance to disclosing materials related to patents. Conversely, the sole resolution favoring the defendants was the denial of the plaintiffs' demand for litigation hold letters. The judge has set a strict deadline of November 23, 2023, for the submission of the disputed documents.

As the hair relaxer class action continues to explode with new cases, a major early discovery battle appears to be developing between the plaintiffs and the defendants. Last week, all of the hair relaxer defendants jointly submitted a brief to the MDL Judge detailing various discovery disputes and issues that have arisen. The joint submission details various complaints that the defense has with the discovery requests propounded by the plaintiffs. In short, the defendants are complaining that the plaintiffs are asking for everything under the sun. The issues will be addressed at the MDL status conference set for today.

In February 2023, there were 24 new cases filed in federal courts, with most filed in the Northern District of Illinois. The lawsuits allege that hair relaxer products caused various health issues, including cancer.

Since the start of February, 11 more hair relaxer product liability lawsuits have been filed in federal courts. Seven of the cases were filed in the Northern District of Illinois. The remaining four were filed in districts nationwide but will all be transferred into the new hair relaxer class action MDL.

In the same month, a class action lawsuit was formed, consolidating multiple individual cases. This will allow plaintiffs to combine their efforts and resources to take on the large corporations involved in the manufacture and distribution of hair relaxer products.

A new lawsuit was filed in Missouri against several companies alleging that their hair care products led to regular and prolonged exposure to phthalates and other endocrine-disrupting chemicals. The plaintiff worked in a hair salon and was diagnosed with endometrial carcinoma a few months prior to the filing of the lawsuit.

This early case was filed in federal court in Chicago by Jenny Mitchell, a Missouri resident who used chemical hair relaxers her entire life. She started using hair relaxers at 10 years old and was diagnosed with uterine cancer at the age of 28. This was one of the first cases to allege that the manufacturers knew or should have known that the chemicals in their products could increase the risk of uterine cancer.