HAIR RELAXERS LAWSUIT
This page has been written, edited, and reviewed by a team of legal writers following our comprehensive editorial guidelines. This page was approved by Founding Partner, Terry Crouppen who has more than 40 years of legal experience as a personal injury attorney. Our last modified date shows when this page was last reviewed.
This page has been written, edited, and reviewed by a team of legal writers following our comprehensive editorial guidelines. This page was approved by Founding Partner, Terry Crouppen who has more than 40 years of legal experience as a personal injury attorney. Our last modified date shows when this page was last reviewed.
- Last Modified:
- March 19, 2024
Hair relaxers, also known as hair straighteners, are products that are used to chemically straighten curly or wavy hair. They work by breaking down the bonds in the hair shaft, which allows the hair to be reshaped into a straight texture. While hair relaxers can be a useful tool for those who want to achieve a straight hairstyle, they have also been linked to health risks and legal allegations.
If you or a loved one has used hair relaxers, straighteners, Brazilian Blowouts, or Keratin products, either on yourself or others, and were later diagnosed with ovarian cancer, uterine cancer, or severe fibroids, you may be eligible to recover compensation. Get started with your case by calling 1-888-520-7077 or request a free case evaluation online.
Defendants have been engaged in litigation before for their use of hair products. In recent years, there have been several hair relaxer lawsuits filed by individuals who claim to have suffered adverse effects from using these products. Some of the most common allegations in these lawsuits include hair loss, scalp irritation, and chemical burns.
One of the most high-profile hair relaxer lawsuits was a class action lawsuit filed against Johnson & Johnson claiming that some of the company’s hair products cause hair loss, scalp irritation, and chemical burns. The case was eventually settled out of court, with Johnson & Johnson agreeing to pay a confidential settlement to the plaintiffs. Other hair relaxer lawsuits have been filed against companies such as L’Oréal and Procter & Gamble. These cases have generally involved similar allegations of hair loss, scalp irritation, and chemical burns.
Get started with a free consultation with one of our skilled Personal Injury Lawyers today.
THE HAZARDS OF FORMALDEHYDE FOUND IN HAIR RELAXERS
Formaldehyde is a colorless, strong-smelling gas which can disrupt the endocrine system and increase the risk of hormone-sensitive diseases. It is present in many hair straighteners or relaxers marketed for salon professionals and home users.
When these products are heated, formaldehyde releases into the air where it can be inhaled by the users and anybody else nearby. Although manufacturers can opt to list every ingredient in their cosmetics, no law requires it. Even brands claiming to be “formaldehyde-free” often contain formalin or methylene glycol, which release formaldehyde when heated.
Classified as a known human carcinogen in 2011, formaldehyde has been linked to a number of reproductive cancers and complications. Despite this, many companies have failed to warn consumers of the health risks.
BLACK WOMEN & SALON WORKERS ARE MOST AT RISK.
Anybody who regularly uses hair straightener products over an extended period of time is at risk.
However, the vast majority of hair relaxers are marketed to and used by Black women. Although a study by the National Institute of Health (NIH) claims that researchers “did not find that the relationship between straightener use and uterine cancer incidence was different by race, the adverse health effects may be greater for Black women due to higher prevalence of use.” Further studies from Oxford University found that frequent and long-term use of lye-based relaxers could have serious health effects, including links to breast cancer.
Hair Relaxer Lawsuit Updates
July 2023 Updates
July 1st: The defendants have requested the court to separate and suspend all investigations unrelated to general causation. In simpler terms, they want to focus solely on determining whether hair relaxers can potentially cause cancer before proceeding with other aspects of the case.
This approach is considered unfavorable because it would significantly prolong the preparation process for the trials and potentially steer the parties closer to reaching a settlement. Bifurcating general causation discovery is not a commonly adopted practice in multi-district litigation throughout the country. It is inefficient, expensive, and delays the resolution of the legal proceedings.
In the specific hair relaxer class action lawsuit, this proposal is even more problematic due to the plaintiffs’ strong arguments regarding causation. If the court were to grant the defendant’s request, the cases would be stagnant for approximately a year, hindering progress in proving the accuracy of the Sister Study and the connection between hair relaxers and cancer.
Given these circumstances, it is unlikely that the MDL judge will approve the defendants’ motion.
June 2023 Updates
June 16th: In the past month, 25 additional lawsuits concerning hair relaxers have been transferred to the class action multidistrict litigation (MDL). Consequently, the total number of pending cases in the hair relaxer MDL has risen to 149. It is noteworthy that when the MDL was established in February, there were only 21 pending cases. We anticipate a significant surge in new case filings in the upcoming months.
June 9th: The defendants involved in the hair relaxer MDL are advocating for a divided discovery procedure that would restrict the initial phase of discovery solely to the matter of general causation, specifically focusing on the evidence linking hair relaxers to cancer. Subsequent discovery on other matters would commence only after the completion of this initial causation phase. Such an approach is frequently employed by defendants in product liability cases of this nature. However, the plaintiffs have already expressed vehement opposition to this proposition, and their concerns are well-founded, as they argue that it would result in significant delays.
June 1st: A recent study conducted by the Boston University School of Public Health has established a connection between the use of chemical hair straighteners and a decline in fertility. The findings, published in the American Journal of Epidemiology, shed light on a racial disparity, indicating that individuals of Black, Hispanic, and mixed races are more likely to utilize these products and potentially be exposed to their harmful chemicals. The research also revealed that these demographic groups tend to start using relaxers at an earlier age, with greater frequency, and for more extended periods, which correlates with a decrease in the likelihood of achieving pregnancy.
The outcomes of this study should come as no surprise. They align with existing knowledge regarding the health risks associated with exposure to toxic chemicals found in beauty products, including phthalates, phenols, and parabens. These substances have the potential to disrupt the endocrine system and impact fertility.
May 2023 Updates
May 23rd: The plaintiffs involved in the ongoing hair relaxer lawsuits have submitted a Master Complaint in federal court. In the context of an MDL class action lawsuit, a Master Complaint refers to a consolidated document that encompasses the shared allegations presented in multiple individual lawsuits. These lawsuits typically target a common group of defendants across various jurisdictions but revolve around similar issues.
May 19th: Yesterday, a telephonic hearing took place to address various disputes regarding the intricacies of the discovery process. While the court generally leaned towards the defendants’ position, it is worth noting that the specific issues under discussion hold minimal significance.
May 15th: In the past month, the hair relaxer class action MDL saw an addition of twenty-two new plaintiffs, resulting in a total of 124 pending cases within the MDL. It is worth noting that when the MDL was initially established in February, there were only 21 cases. As we progress through the year, it is anticipated that the number of new hair relaxer cancer cases will continue to increase steadily.
May 11th: To resolve any confusion regarding the procedure for filing new cases pertaining to the hair relaxer class action lawsuit, the MDL judge has issued an order. If you intend to file a new case, it must be submitted individually to the Northern District of Illinois. It is crucial to indicate the connection to the MDL by noting the master docket number 23 CV 0818 and mentioning Judge Mary Rowland on the civil cover sheet. Additionally, ensure that the formatting and requirements specified in the Direct Filing Order and Case Management Order No. 2 are strictly adhered to. By following these instructions, your case will be assigned its own unique number.
May 5th: Mark your calendars for upcoming status hearings scheduled to take place at 1:00 p.m. (CT) on the following dates: May 31, June 7, August 23, October 4, and November 17, 2023. These hearings will be held in Courtroom 1225, located at 219 South Dearborn Street in Chicago.May 1st: Ongoing hair relaxer lawsuits are consistently being filed directly in the Northern District of Illinois, where all the class action lawsuits are centralized. A recent lawsuit filed on Friday by a woman from Louisiana claims that her uterine cancer and endometriosis resulted from regular and prolonged exposure to phthalates and other endocrine-disrupting chemicals found in hair products manufactured by defendants such as L’Oreal and others.
April 2023 Updates
April 21st: A group consisting of politicians and female activist organizations in the UK has come together to demand that L’Oreal and other cosmetic companies withdraw all their hair relaxer products from the market. This call is in response to recent research linking these products to cancer. Level Up, a prominent British feminist organization, has released an open letter, urging major cosmetic companies to either eliminate harmful chemicals from hair relaxers or remove them entirely from store shelves. The letter has garnered signatures from influential UK politicians, including several prominent Members of Parliament.
April 19th: Yesterday, Judge Rowland conducted a status conference with attorneys representing both sides in the hair relaxer class action MDL. The central focus of the discussion revolved around determining the approach to handle the admissibility of evidence concerning causation. The defendants are advocating for a two-step process, suggesting that general causation should be addressed first before examining the evidence linking hair relaxer products to specific types of cancer, such as uterine cancer and ovarian cancer. On the other hand, the plaintiffs argue that this approach will cause unnecessary delays and instead propose a combined format.
Recognizing the importance of reaching a consensus, Judge Rowland encouraged the parties to attempt to find common ground and reach an agreement before the court renders a decision on the matter.
April 18th: In the past month, an additional 24 cases have been transferred into the hair relaxer class action MDL, raising the overall number of pending lawsuits within the MDL to 102. As we progress, the monthly influx of new cases in this litigation is expected to rise steadily. By the end of this summer, it is projected that the number of new cases per month could reach 100-200, indicating a significant surge in litigation volume.
April 6th: Federal courts continue to witness the filing of new hair relaxer lawsuits. Currently, there are over 200 pending cases across the country, with a majority of them already transferred into the MDL. In the latter half of March alone, an additional 38 hair relaxer cancer lawsuits were filed. Furthermore, the volume of new filings is expected to experience a significant increase due to a recent order permitting direct filing of new cases within the hair relaxer class action MDL.
March 2023 Updates
March 31st: The MDL in Chicago pertaining to the chemical hair straightener class action lawsuit has issued a new order. This order grants plaintiffs the opportunity to file their claims directly within the MDL, rather than filing in their respective home states and awaiting a transfer of the case by the court. When filing, the lawsuit must include a specific title and indicate the jurisdiction where the case would have been originally filed. Following pretrial proceedings and bellwether trials, individual claims will be returned to their original courts if no global hair relaxer settlement is reached.
March 27th: Revlon, a prominent cosmetic company, is known for manufacturing and marketing various brands of chemical hair relaxer products. Despite its involvement in the hair relaxer industry, Revlon has not yet been named as a defendant in the ongoing hair relaxer class action lawsuit. This is primarily due to the fact that Revlon Inc. filed for bankruptcy shortly before the hair relaxer litigation commenced. Consequently, the automatic stay provided by the bankruptcy process has shielded Revlon from being sued. However, it is essential to note that this does not absolve Revlon of potential liability.
In recent developments, the Plaintiffs Steering Committee (PSC) involved in the hair relaxer MDL has presented Judge Rowland with a comprehensive update on the Revlon bankruptcy proceedings. The PSC has filed a claim within the bankruptcy case on behalf of all potential hair relaxer plaintiffs who have utilized Revlon products. This claim must now be taken into account during the formulation of the Revlon bankruptcy plan to ensure appropriate compensation for potential plaintiffs with claims against Revlon.
March 16th: In the past month, a total of fifty-seven new hair relaxer cancer lawsuits have been transferred into the recently established class action MDL. This significant increase raises the number of pending cases within the MDL from 21 last month to 78. This upward trend is expected to continue, with a further surge in the volume of new cases as the year unfolds. By the end of the summer, it is anticipated that this MDL could potentially average around 200 new cases per month.
March 11th: Pleadings/Amending Complaints: The parties involved will engage in discussions and collaborate to file a consolidated hair relaxer complaint or propose a format that ensures a unified and efficient hair relaxer lawsuit. A deadline will be proposed to allow for the submission of proposals and for the parties to meet and confer on this matter.
Direct Filing Order: By the end of business on March 13, 2023, the Plaintiffs’ Leadership Council (PLC) will provide Defendants with a draft Direct Filing Order. The parties will then either submit an agreed-upon proposed order or, if no agreement is reached, they will submit their respective proposals to the court on or before March 31, 2023.
General Causation: As expected, there is disagreement among the hair relaxer lawyers regarding the issue of bifurcation and whether general causation should be addressed first. The parties will propose a deadline for submitting a briefing to the court on this matter.
Federal and State Court Coordination, Probate Matters, Preservation Order, ESI Discovery Plan, and Protection Order: The parties have reached an agreement to meet and confer on various aspects, including federal and state court coordination, addressing probate matters, implementing a preservation order, devising a plan for the discovery of electronically stored information (ESI), and establishing a protection order.
March 1st: Tomorrow, Judge Mary Rowland will conduct the inaugural status conference in the recently established hair relaxer class action MDL. The primary focus of the conference will revolve around establishing the protocol for forming plaintiffs’ counsel leadership committees, which will be responsible for making collective decisions on behalf of all the plaintiffs involved in the MDL. In her initial Case Management Order, Judge Rowland indicated that a single steering committee will be established. Furthermore, she will appoint lead counsel, who will be responsible for overseeing the bellwether trials, as well as liaison counsel.
March 2023 Updates
March 31st: The MDL in Chicago pertaining to the chemical hair straightener class action lawsuit has issued a new order. This order grants plaintiffs the opportunity to file their claims directly within the MDL, rather than filing in their respective home states and awaiting a transfer of the case by the court. When filing, the lawsuit must include a specific title and indicate the jurisdiction where the case would have been originally filed. Following pretrial proceedings and bellwether trials, individual claims will be returned to their original courts if no global hair relaxer settlement is reached.
March 27th: Revlon, a prominent cosmetic company, is known for manufacturing and marketing various brands of chemical hair relaxer products. Despite its involvement in the hair relaxer industry, Revlon has not yet been named as a defendant in the ongoing hair relaxer class action lawsuit. This is primarily due to the fact that Revlon Inc. filed for bankruptcy shortly before the hair relaxer litigation commenced. Consequently, the automatic stay provided by the bankruptcy process has shielded Revlon from being sued. However, it is essential to note that this does not absolve Revlon of potential liability.
In recent developments, the Plaintiffs Steering Committee (PSC) involved in the hair relaxer MDL has presented Judge Rowland with a comprehensive update on the Revlon bankruptcy proceedings. The PSC has filed a claim within the bankruptcy case on behalf of all potential hair relaxer plaintiffs who have utilized Revlon products. This claim must now be taken into account during the formulation of the Revlon bankruptcy plan to ensure appropriate compensation for potential plaintiffs with claims against Revlon.
March 16th: In the past month, a total of fifty-seven new hair relaxer cancer lawsuits have been transferred into the recently established class action MDL. This significant increase raises the number of pending cases within the MDL from 21 last month to 78. This upward trend is expected to continue, with a further surge in the volume of new cases as the year unfolds. By the end of the summer, it is anticipated that this MDL could potentially average around 200 new cases per month.
March 11th: Pleadings/Amending Complaints: The parties involved will engage in discussions and collaborate to file a consolidated hair relaxer complaint or propose a format that ensures a unified and efficient hair relaxer lawsuit. A deadline will be proposed to allow for the submission of proposals and for the parties to meet and confer on this matter.
Direct Filing Order: By the end of business on March 13, 2023, the Plaintiffs’ Leadership Council (PLC) will provide Defendants with a draft Direct Filing Order. The parties will then either submit an agreed-upon proposed order or, if no agreement is reached, they will submit their respective proposals to the court on or before March 31, 2023.
General Causation: As expected, there is disagreement among the hair relaxer lawyers regarding the issue of bifurcation and whether general causation should be addressed first. The parties will propose a deadline for submitting a briefing to the court on this matter.
Federal and State Court Coordination, Probate Matters, Preservation Order, ESI Discovery Plan, and Protection Order: The parties have reached an agreement to meet and confer on various aspects, including federal and state court coordination, addressing probate matters, implementing a preservation order, devising a plan for the discovery of electronically stored information (ESI), and establishing a protection order.
March 1st: Tomorrow, Judge Mary Rowland will conduct the inaugural status conference in the recently established hair relaxer class action MDL. The primary focus of the conference will revolve around establishing the protocol for forming plaintiffs’ counsel leadership committees, which will be responsible for making collective decisions on behalf of all the plaintiffs involved in the MDL. In her initial Case Management Order, Judge Rowland indicated that a single steering committee will be established. Furthermore, she will appoint lead counsel, who will be responsible for overseeing the bellwether trials, as well as liaison counsel.
February 2023 Updates
February 27th: In response to yesterday’s late update, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) has granted the consolidation of all hair relaxer lawsuits in federal courts into a newly established class action MDL. The responsibility for overseeing the hair relaxer class action litigation has been assigned to Judge Mary Rowland, who presides in the Northern District of Illinois in Chicago. Judge Rowland brings significant experience to the role, having served as a Magistrate Judge in Chicago for several years before her appointment to the federal bench in 2019, with strong bipartisan support. At the commencement of the MDL, approximately 60 cases from federal courts across the nation are already pending for inclusion.
February 16th: Today, the JPML Panel officially approved the hair straightener class action lawsuit. As a result, all federal hair relaxer lawsuits will be consolidated and centralized in Illinois. Stay tuned for further updates on this matter, which will be provided tomorrow.
February 7th: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has made a noteworthy decision to include specific phthalates, including DINP, in its list of toxic chemicals that require heightened regulations and reporting obligations. This development holds significance as DINP and other phthalates are present in hair relaxer products and are believed to interfere with the hormonal system, potentially increasing the risk of uterine and ovarian cancer. The EPA’s determination to regulate these chemicals is grounded in compelling evidence pointing to their association with cancer.
February 6th: Today, the JPML Panel officially approved the hair straightener class action lawsuit. As a result, all federal hair relaxer lawsuits will be consolidated and centralized in Illinois. Stay tuned for further updates on this matter, which will be provided tomorrow.
February 5th: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has made a noteworthy decision to include specific phthalates, including DINP, in its list of toxic chemicals that require heightened regulations and reporting obligations. This development holds significance as DINP and other phthalates are present in hair relaxer products and are believed to interfere with the hormonal system, potentially increasing the risk of uterine and ovarian cancer. The EPA’s determination to regulate these chemicals is grounded in compelling evidence pointing to their association with cancer.
February 1st: Further evidence supporting consolidated litigation has emerged while we await the ruling of the MDL Panel regarding the class action. Over the past ten days, seven additional hair relaxer product liability lawsuits have been filed in federal courts. These cases have been filed in five distinct federal districts, including Maryland, Washington, California, Missouri, and Illinois. In January alone, a total of 23 hair relaxer lawsuits were filed in federal courts.
Anticipated this week is a ruling from the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) regarding the centralization of hair relaxer cases into a newly formed class action MDL.
January 2023 Updates
January 27th: Today, the MDL hearing to determine the potential hair relaxer class action lawsuit is taking place in Miami. The decision regarding whether to establish the MDL will be made by the respective MDL Panel, and it is anticipated that a ruling will be issued sometime in February. As previously stated and reiterated today, it is difficult to envision a scenario where the MDL is not granted in this litigation.
January 20th: Yesterday, two additional hair relaxer lawsuits were filed in federal courts. The first case was filed in the Northern District of Illinois, making it the 10th hair relaxer case currently pending in that district. The second case was filed in the Western District of Washington, marking the first such case in that district. Notably, there has been a significant acceleration in the rate of new hair relaxer lawsuits since the beginning of the year, with six new cases filed in just the past week. This trend suggests that the litigation surrounding hair relaxer products is rapidly growing and expanding.
January 17th: The question of whether to consolidate the hair relaxer lawsuits into a class action MDL will be addressed by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) later this month. In response to the defendants’ briefs opposing the MDL, the plaintiffs have recently filed their response.
The plaintiffs’ response effectively counters the defense’s argument that consolidation is unsuitable due to the involvement of multiple defendants in the hair relaxer lawsuits. It highlights the obvious fact that the JPML routinely consolidates cases with numerous defendants and products that share similarities. Additionally, the response reiterates the reasoning behind advocating for the MDL to be assigned to the Northern District of Illinois.
January 12th: Since the beginning of 2023, seven new hair relaxer product liability lawsuits have been filed in federal courts. Among these cases, four were filed in the Western District of Missouri, while the remaining three were filed in the Northern District of Ohio, the Eastern District of Michigan, and the Eastern District of Louisiana. Among the plaintiffs, five primarily alleged uterine cancer as their injury, while the other two cases involved allegations of ovarian cancer and uterine fibroids.
However, it is important to note that this does not imply that the majority of hair relaxer lawsuits are related to uterine cancer. Uterine cancer lawsuits account for approximately 15% of the total cases handled by law firms. Most of the cases involving chemical hair relaxers are cancer claims. Nevertheless, there is a unanimous agreement among legal professionals that uterine cancer lawsuits have the strongest scientific support, particularly due to the Sister Study mentioned below. Given the severe consequences of uterine cancer resulting from the use of hair relaxers, lawyers are prioritizing the filing of uterine cancer lawsuits. The outcomes of these initial cases will significantly impact the settlement compensation for victims.
January 4th: Yesterday, a new lawsuit was filed in Missouri, alleging that a hair relaxer product has caused uterine cancer. The defendants named in the lawsuit are:
L’Oréal USA, Inc. (including L’Oréal USA Products, Inc.)
SoftSheen-Carson LLC
Strength of Nature Global, LLC (Motions and Just for Me)
Namaste Laboratories, LLC
The plaintiff in the lawsuit attributes her regular and prolonged exposure to phthalates and other endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) found in the hair care products manufactured by the defendants. These chemicals are believed to be present in their hair straighteners. The plaintiff’s diagnosis of endometrial carcinoma, which occurred in September 2022, is being linked to this exposure. It is worth noting that the plaintiff had worked in a hair salon for a period of time.
January 2nd: The decision regarding whether to consolidate the hair relaxer lawsuits into a class action MDL will be addressed by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) later this month. In response to the defendant’s brief opposing the MDL, the plaintiffs have recently filed a reply.
The plaintiffs’ response effectively counters the defense’s argument that consolidation is unsuitable due to the involvement of numerous defendants in the hair relaxer lawsuits. It highlights the fact that the JPML routinely consolidates similar cases that encompass multiple defendants and products. Additionally, the response reiterates the reasoning behind advocating for the MDL to be assigned to the Northern District of Illinois.
December 2022 Updates
December 26th: Since the beginning of December, a minimum of five additional hair relaxer lawsuits have been filed in federal courts. One of these cases, involving hair straighteners, was filed in the Southern District of Ohio, while the remaining lawsuits were filed in the Northern District of Illinois. Among these cases, three lawsuits attribute uterine cancer as the primary injury, while the other two cases pertain to uterine fibroids.
As of now, there are a minimum of 15 ongoing personal injury cases related to hair relaxers, alongside three consumer class action cases. The decision to consolidate these cases into a new hair relaxer class action lawsuit will be made by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) next month.
December 20th: The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) has set a hearing date of January 26, 2023, to address the motion seeking the consolidation of all hair relaxer lawsuits from federal courts into a new class action MDL. L’Oreal and the other defendants are vehemently opposed to MDL consolidation and will express their objections during the hearing. With 15 hair relaxer lawsuits already pending in federal courts and a likelihood of more to come, it is highly probable that the JPML will establish an MDL. The primary consideration remains the determination of the MDL’s location.
December 14th: L’Oréal and its subsidiaries have submitted a request to a panel of federal judges, urging them to dismiss a consolidated MDL hair relaxer lawsuit. They argue that a class action would lead to inefficiency due to the perceived lack of commonalities among the hair straightener lawsuits.
However, this argument appears questionable when faced with the reality that our law firm receives daily communication from over a hundred women who have been diagnosed with uterine cancer, fibroids, endometriosis, endometrial cancer, or ovarian cancer. The striking similarities in their stories and experiences cannot be overlooked.
While L’Oréal may choose to contest the matter, the inevitability of a hair relaxer class action remains strong. The significant number of affected individuals and the shared nature of their circumstances make a compelling case for consolidation.
November 2022 Updates
November 26th: In recent developments, a unique form of class action hair relaxer lawsuit was filed last week with the aim of compelling cosmetic companies to cover the costs of a medical monitoring program for women who might be at risk from the potential harms associated with chemical hair relaxers.
The lawsuit pertaining to medical monitoring was filed in federal court in Michigan. A medical monitoring lawsuit involves individuals seeking regular medical examinations or tests to monitor potential health issues resulting from exposure to harmful substances, even if they currently display no symptoms. The plaintiffs in this particular litigation cite new research linking the use of hair relaxers to uterine cancer and other health conditions, which forms the basis for their demand that defendants, including L’Oréal, be obligated to fund a program to monitor the long-term health of the members within the plaintiff class.
This new hair relaxer case emerges in conjunction with the recent motion to consolidate hair relaxer cancer cases into a new class action MDL. It is important to note that our law firm is not directly involved in the medical monitoring suit. Our primary focus lies on advocating for victims who have experienced significant injuries and even death due to the use of hair relaxers.
November 18th: On Tuesday, attorneys representing a group of plaintiffs who have recently filed hair relaxer cancer lawsuits submitted a motion to the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) seeking the consolidation of these cases into a new class action MDL. It is anticipated that this litigation will have significant magnitude.
The motion highlights that there are currently nine hair relaxer cases involving 13 individual plaintiffs pending across four distinct federal district courts. All of these cases assert allegations that hair relaxer products have resulted in the development of uterine cancer. The motion specifically requests that Judge Mary Rowland in the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) be assigned to preside over the MDL.
The defendants mentioned in the motion include L’Oreal USA, Inc., as well as several smaller non-public companies. While it is foreseeable that the defendants may ultimately agree to the MDL class action, their legal representatives will likely propose an alternative venue other than Chicago, Illinois, which they perceive as more favorable.
GET STARTED WITH YOUR HAIR RELAXER CASE
The product liability lawyers at Brown & Crouppen are investigating possible claims for anybody who:
- Used hair relaxers at least four times a year for two consecutive years, whether on themselves or on others, and within five years of last use, was diagnosed with one or more of the following:
- Endometrial cancer
- Ovarian cancer
- Uterine cancer
- Uterine sarcoma
- Uterine fibroids which resulted in:
- Hysterectomy (partial or total)
- Myomectomy
- Fibroidectomy
If you believe you were injured because of using hair relaxers, straighteners, Brazilian Blowouts, or Keratin products, reach out to Brown & Crouppen at 1-888-520-7077 for your free legal consultation or save time with our online case evaluation form.
FREE CASE EVALUATION
Our Results
- Last Modified:
- March 19, 2024
SCHEDULE A FREE CONSULTATION
