Hair relaxer lawsuit : Last Updated: July 2026
Chemical hair relaxers have been used by millions of American women for decades. What those women were not told — and what a growing body of scientific research now suggests — is that the chemicals in these products may have contributed to some of the most serious diagnoses a woman can receive: uterine cancer, ovarian cancer, and endometrial cancer. The lawsuits that followed that research now represent one of the largest active mass tort litigations in the United States, with nearly 12,000 plaintiffs in federal court alone.
This page provides a comprehensive legal and factual overview of where the hair relaxer litigation stands, what the science shows, who can file a claim, what these cases may be worth, and what survivors need to do to protect their rights.
What This Litigation Is About
Starting in October 2022, following the publication of a major National Institutes of Health study in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, women across the country began filing lawsuits against the manufacturers of chemical hair relaxers and hair straighteners. The lawsuits allege that these companies sold products containing hormone-disrupting and potentially carcinogenic chemicals — and did so for decades without adequately warning consumers of the risks.
The defendants include some of the most prominent names in the beauty industry: L’Oréal USA and its subsidiary SoftSheen-Carson, Godrej SON Holdings, Strength of Nature, Revlon, and numerous smaller manufacturers. Plaintiffs allege that these companies knew, or had every reason to know, that their products contained dangerous chemicals, and that they used labeling structures that actively hid many of those ingredients from the women who applied them to their scalps.
The lawsuits are not a class action — a point worth emphasizing, because a class action would likely undervalue these claims significantly. Instead, they are consolidated in a federal multidistrict litigation where each plaintiff retains her own individual case. That structure allows survivors with serious cancer diagnoses to pursue compensation that reflects the actual severity of their individual harm.
The Latest Lawsuit Updates (2026)
July 9, 2026 — New Louisiana Ovarian Cancer Lawsuit Filed
A plaintiff from Baton Rouge, Louisiana has filed a new complaint in the hair relaxer MDL alleging that decades of chemical hair relaxer use caused her to develop ovarian cancer. She reports using hair relaxer products beginning around 1979 and continuing until approximately 2024, with a cancer diagnosis in 2025. The products identified include Dark and Lovely and Just For Me brand relaxers. Named defendants include L’Oréal USA, SoftSheen-Carson, Godrej SON Holdings, and Strength of Nature.
July 3, 2026 — RNA Corporation Discovery Dispute
The court held a status conference addressing discovery obligations involving RNA Corporation, a second-wave defendant. Several bellwether defendants identified RNA as a potentially necessary party in their defense filings, prompting plaintiffs to seek expedited discovery to understand RNA’s role as a manufacturer or supplier of hair relaxer products. The judge ordered short briefs on the scope of any required production, with the possibility of referral to Special Master Grossman. This is an important fight because it goes to the question of which companies in the supply chain share responsibility for the products that harmed plaintiffs.
July 1, 2026 — MDL Tops Nearly 12,000 Plaintiffs
As of July 1, 2026, there are 11,877 plaintiffs in the federal hair relaxer MDL — not counting state court cases. This makes the hair relaxer litigation one of the largest active MDLs in the country. State court coordinated proceedings are also active in Illinois, Pennsylvania, New York, and Georgia, each proceeding on independent schedules.
September 15, 2025 — Fibroid Cases Excluded from MDL
MDL leadership made a significant ruling: only cancer claims — uterine cancer, ovarian cancer, and endometrial cancer — are included in the federal MDL at this time. Uterine fibroid cases are excluded from the MDL as it is currently structured. This does not necessarily mean fibroid victims have no legal recourse, but they are not part of the consolidated federal litigation at this juncture.
July 29, 2025 — Court Blocks Revlon’s Subpoena of the NIH
Judge Mary Rowland denied Revlon’s attempt to subpoena the National Institutes of Health for the underlying data behind the Sister Study and the 2022 Chang study. The NIH successfully argued that internal research files are protected under the deliberative process privilege. This ruling was a significant win for plaintiffs, as Revlon was attempting to challenge the scientific foundation of the lawsuits by accessing unpublished internal NIH data.
June 27, 2025 — California Plaintiff Files New Claim
A California resident identified as Shaqurie Franklin filed a complaint alleging uterine and ovarian cancer caused by long-term use of multiple relaxer products including Just for Me, African Pride, ORS Olive Oil, Dark and Lovely, and Crème of Nature. This filing reflects the diverse product mix used by many plaintiffs and the multi-brand nature of most claims.
June 15, 2025 — Bellwether Trials Scheduled
The first MDL bellwether trial was set to begin November 3, 2025, with a second trial scheduled for February 2, 2026. Bellwether trials are the test cases that will shape the litigation’s trajectory and inform settlement negotiations across thousands of remaining claims.
April 30, 2025 — Special Settlement Master Appointed
Judge Rowland appointed Ellen K. Reisman, a highly regarded mass tort practitioner, as Special Master to oversee settlement negotiations in the MDL. Her appointment under Case Management Order No. 17 signals a meaningful step toward structured resolution discussions.
June 30, 2024 — Georgia Appellate Court Rules for Plaintiff
The Georgia Court of Appeals delivered a significant win for plaintiffs when it allowed Kiara Burroughs’ hair relaxer lawsuit to proceed in Georgia state court. L’Oréal, SoftSheen-Carson, and Strength of Nature had sought to dismiss the case. The appellate court disagreed, finding her claims sufficient to move forward. Burroughs alleged that she used chemical hair relaxers for approximately ten years, from childhood into young adulthood, and suffered fibroid-related injuries as a result.
May 10, 2025 — French Parent Company Dismissed
Judge Rowland dismissed L’Oréal S.A. — the French parent company — from the litigation, finding that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over the foreign entity. L’Oréal USA and its domestic subsidiaries remain defendants.
How Chemical Hair Relaxers Work — and Why It Matters
Understanding the chemistry of hair relaxers is central to understanding why they are at the heart of a major cancer lawsuit.
Hair relaxers are high-alkaline cream products formulated to permanently alter the structure of tightly curled hair. They work by exploiting the sensitivity of keratin — the primary structural protein in human hair — to highly alkaline pH environments. When applied to the scalp and left in place during a processing period, the relaxer chemically breaks disulfide bonds within the hair’s protein structure, causing the fiber to straighten.
Two primary categories of relaxers exist on the market. Lye relaxers, which use sodium hydroxide as the primary active ingredient, are generally stronger and more commonly used by professional stylists. No-lye relaxers, which use compounds such as guanidine carbonate, are mixed at home and tend to be gentler on the scalp but require more frequent application.
The critical issue from a health standpoint is where the product is applied: directly to the scalp, which is among the most chemically permeable surfaces on the human body. Unlike hair dye applied to the hair shaft, relaxers are worked into the scalp itself. And because natural hair regrowth means that new roots require re-treatment every four to eight weeks — a process called retouching — women who used relaxers regularly were not exposed once, but potentially hundreds of times over years or decades of use.
What the Products Contained That Was Not on the Label
A 2018 study by the Silent Spring Institute analyzed hair care products commonly marketed to Black women and identified dozens of hormone-disrupting chemicals. Critically, many of those chemicals were not listed on the product label. Federal cosmetic labeling rules do not require manufacturers to disclose individual chemical compounds contained within a fragrance or flavor blend — those ingredients can simply be listed as “fragrance” or “perfume” on the label.
Plaintiffs allege that this regulatory gap allowed manufacturers to include endocrine-disrupting compounds in their products for decades without meaningful consumer disclosure. The chemicals of concern identified across the litigation include phthalates, parabens, formaldehyde and formaldehyde-releasing agents, cyclosiloxanes, and lye. Several of these — particularly phthalates and formaldehyde — are known or suspected carcinogens and endocrine disruptors.
Formaldehyde’s dangers have been documented by regulators for years. As early as 2011, the FDA issued a warning letter to the makers of Brazilian Blowout after finding that the product — marketed as formaldehyde-free — contained chemicals that converted to formaldehyde when exposed to heat. The agency has since signaled support for restricting formaldehyde use in hair straighteners, but a formal ban has not yet been enacted.
Phthalates are a class of chemicals long used to extend the staying power of fragrance in cosmetic products and are listed on labels simply as “fragrance.” They are banned or heavily restricted in many consumer products across the European Union and in California. Their endocrine-disrupting properties — their ability to interfere with the body’s hormonal signaling systems — are well established in scientific literature.
The Science Connecting Hair Relaxers to Cancer
The lawsuits rest on a substantial and growing body of epidemiological research. The most significant findings to date include the following:
The 2022 NIH Study — Journal of the National Cancer Institute. This is the cornerstone of the litigation’s scientific record. Published in October 2022, the study drew on data from the NIH Sister Study, which followed more than 33,000 American women between the ages of 35 and 74 for nearly eleven years. Among the 378 uterine cancer diagnoses recorded during the study period, researchers found a striking pattern: women who never used chemical hair relaxers had an estimated lifetime uterine cancer risk of approximately 1.64 percent. Among frequent users — women who used relaxers more than four times per year — that estimated risk rose to approximately 4.05 percent. That represents more than a doubling of risk associated with regular use.
The Sister Study — Ovarian Cancer Findings. The same Sister Study dataset was analyzed for ovarian cancer associations, and researchers found an elevated risk of ovarian cancer among women who used hair relaxers four or more times annually compared to non-users.
The 2020 Boston University Black Women’s Health Study. Following nearly 60,000 African American women over several decades beginning in 1995, researchers found that hair straightener users had a significantly higher rate of uterine cancer diagnosis compared to women who did not use these products.
Fertility Research. A Boston University School of Public Health study published in the American Journal of Epidemiology found an association between chemical hair relaxer use and reduced fertility, with racial disparities suggesting that Black, Hispanic, and mixed-race women — who tend to begin relaxer use earlier and use products more frequently — faced the greatest exposure-related risks.
Occupational Exposure Research. A 2023 study published in The BMJ found that workers in hair salons — stylists, barbers, and cosmetologists — faced approximately three times the ovarian cancer risk of workers in other professions, attributed to chronic occupational exposure to chemicals including ammonia, formaldehyde, hydrogen peroxide, and other compounds common in salon products.
Historical Breast Cancer Research. A 2017 Rutgers University study found a statistical association between chemical hair relaxer use and breast cancer in African American women. A 2019 NIH Sister Study analysis found that women who used hair relaxers were approximately 30 percent more likely to develop breast cancer than women who did not.
It is important to understand how scientific evidence functions in litigation. These studies establish statistical associations and risk elevation, not one-to-one proof that a specific product caused a specific individual’s cancer. Defendants will contest this evidence vigorously. Plaintiffs must support their claims with qualified expert testimony that explains the biological mechanism — how endocrine-disrupting chemicals can interfere with hormonal regulation in ways that increase the risk of hormone-sensitive cancers — and connects that mechanism to the products at issue. Expert qualification hearings will be a critical battleground before the first bellwether trial.
Which Cancers Are Covered — and Which Are Not
As the MDL is currently structured, the following diagnoses are the focus of the federal litigation:
Uterine Cancer — including both endometrial cancer (the more common and generally more treatable form, originating in the uterine lining) and uterine sarcoma (rarer and more aggressive). Approximately 65,000 new uterine cancer cases are diagnosed in the United States each year, with roughly 12,500 deaths annually. Women with uterine cancer diagnoses and documented relaxer use are among the core plaintiff populations in this litigation.
Endometrial Cancer — while technically a subcategory of uterine cancer, many complaints identify endometrial cancer as a standalone diagnosis. These claims are among the strongest being pursued.
Ovarian Cancer — supported by the Sister Study findings, ovarian cancer claims are actively being reviewed. Ovarian cancer is diagnosed in roughly 20,000 American women per year and carries a substantially lower five-year survival rate than uterine or endometrial cancer, largely because it is frequently diagnosed at an advanced stage.
What Is Currently Excluded: Uterine fibroid claims and fibroid-related hysterectomies are not part of the MDL at this time. MDL leadership made that determination in September 2025. This may change as the litigation evolves, but as of the current update, fibroid cases without a qualifying cancer diagnosis are not part of the federal consolidated proceeding.
Who the Defendants Are
The following companies are among those named as defendants across the MDL and related state court proceedings:
- L’Oréal USA, Inc. and L’Oréal USA Products, Inc.
- SoftSheen-Carson LLC (a wholly owned L’Oréal subsidiary and maker of Dark and Lovely and Optimum product lines)
- Godrej SON Holdings, Inc.
- Strength of Nature, LLC (maker of the Just For Me line, among others)
- Revlon, Inc. and Revlon Consumer Products Corporation (currently in bankruptcy proceedings)
- Dabur International Ltd. and Dabur International USA Ltd.
- Namaste Laboratories, LLC
- Dermoviva Skin Essentials, Inc.
- AFAM Concept, Inc. d/b/a JF Labs
- McBride Research Laboratories, Inc.
- Avlon Industries, Inc.
- Beauty Bell Enterprises, LLC d/b/a House of Cheatham, Inc.
- Luster Products, Inc.
- Sally Beauty Holdings, Inc. d/b/a Silk Elements
- Parfums de Coeur, Ltd. d/b/a PDC Brands
A note on Revlon: Revlon’s bankruptcy complicates recovery for plaintiffs whose claims are primarily against that company. However, Revlon appears to carry insurance coverage that may be available to satisfy claims. Many plaintiffs who initially filed against Revlon in connection with the bankruptcy deadline are now pursuing claims against other defendants with stronger financial positions. Anyone with Revlon-specific claims should consult an attorney about the current status of those proceedings.
A note on L’Oréal S.A.: The French parent company was dismissed from the MDL in May 2025 for lack of personal jurisdiction. The domestic entity, L’Oréal USA, remains a defendant.
MDL vs. Class Action: Understanding the Difference
Many people searching for information about hair relaxer lawsuits encounter the phrase “class action,” and the distinction matters enormously for survivors.
In a class action, all plaintiffs are grouped into a single case. One outcome — a verdict or settlement — is divided among all members. Individual circumstances play almost no role in determining what any one person receives. A woman who endured a terminal ovarian cancer diagnosis at age 35 would receive the same payment as someone with a far less severe claim. That structure tends to generate very low per-person payouts and primarily benefits class counsel.
The hair relaxer litigation operates as an MDL — a multidistrict litigation — which is fundamentally different. Cases are consolidated in one court for pretrial efficiency: shared discovery, common expert proceedings, coordinated scheduling. But each plaintiff retains her own individual lawsuit. If a global settlement is reached, each claim is evaluated on its own facts, with more severe injuries generating higher compensation. The MDL structure is far more appropriate for serious personal injury claims, and survivors should understand that individual case value is preserved under this framework.
Do You Qualify to File a Hair Relaxer Lawsuit?
The MDL has established criteria for claims that qualify to participate in the federal litigation. Based on the most current case management guidance, a qualifying claim generally requires:
- Use of chemical hair relaxer or hair straightener products for a minimum of five continuous years prior to diagnosis
- A qualifying cancer diagnosis — uterine cancer, endometrial cancer, or ovarian cancer — on or after 2005
- The cancer diagnosis must have occurred within ten years of the last use of the product
- The ability to identify at least one specific product brand or manufacturer used
Claims that tend to be strongest also involve:
- Knowledge of the specific brand or brands used
- At least one year between the first documented use of a hair relaxer and the cancer diagnosis
- A diagnosis before age 60
- In cases where the victim is deceased, the death occurring within ten years of last product use
Fibroid diagnoses without a qualifying cancer are not currently part of the MDL, though that may change.
If you are uncertain whether your circumstances qualify, consulting with a lawyer is the appropriate first step. The initial consultation is free and confidential, and an attorney can evaluate the specific facts of your situation against current MDL criteria.
Statutes of Limitations: Time May Be Running Out
Every state sets its own legal deadline for filing personal injury lawsuits. Miss that deadline, and a claim may be permanently barred regardless of how strong the evidence is.
Hair relaxer cases present a particular nuance. Many women used these products for decades without any awareness of the potential cancer connection. The research linking relaxer use to elevated cancer risk has only become widely understood following the 2022 NIH study. Most states address this through the discovery rule: the limitations period does not begin until the plaintiff knew, or reasonably should have known, that her injury might be connected to the product.
As a practical matter, this means that a woman diagnosed with uterine or ovarian cancer years ago may still have a viable claim if she only recently became aware of the potential connection to hair relaxer use. But this analysis is highly state-specific and fact-specific. Anyone with questions about timing should speak with a lawyer as soon as possible. Delay only creates risk.
What These Cases May Be Worth
No hair relaxer case has yet gone to a jury as of this update. The first bellwether trial is expected in 2027. Settlement discussions are ongoing under the supervision of Special Master Ellen Reisman. Any discussion of case value at this stage is necessarily an informed estimate rather than a certainty — but that does not mean estimates are not useful for survivors trying to understand their situation.
Based on the strength of the scientific evidence, the severity of the injuries at issue, and the profile of comparable mass tort litigations, attorneys working these cases have offered the following general framework:
Strong uterine or endometrial cancer cases — involving younger plaintiffs, aggressive treatment, infertility consequences, long-term documented relaxer use, and clear product identification — are estimated to potentially generate individual settlements ranging from approximately $150,000 to $750,000, with some cases potentially exceeding that range depending on the specific facts. Verdicts at trial, if the cases proceed that way, could be meaningfully higher.
Ovarian cancer cases present some of the most serious factual profiles in the litigation given the disease’s severity and its mortality rate. A late-stage ovarian cancer diagnosis in a long-term relaxer user with strong product identification is among the highest-value claim profiles.
Cases with more limited evidence, weaker product identification, or less severe diagnoses will generally command lower values.
One other attorney estimate, drawn from practitioners with significant investment in this litigation, suggests a range from roughly $100,000 to $1.8 million per claim depending on injury severity and case strength. The wide range reflects the reality that no two cases are identical.
Factors that increase individual case value:
- Severity and aggressiveness of the cancer diagnosis
- Stage at diagnosis
- Treatment intensity (surgery, chemotherapy, radiation, ongoing monitoring)
- Age at diagnosis — younger plaintiffs with longer projected life impact generally receive higher compensation
- Fertility loss or hysterectomy
- Duration and frequency of hair relaxer use
- Specific product identification
- Evidence that the defendant companies had prior knowledge of chemical risks
- Availability of punitive damages under applicable state law
- Strength of causation evidence
- Economic losses — medical bills, lost wages, lost earning capacity
How a Settlement Would Be Structured
Global settlements in mass tort MDLs typically involve a defendant or group of defendants agreeing to a total pool of money to resolve the majority of pending claims. That pool is then distributed across individual plaintiffs using a scoring or tiering system that weights cases based on injury severity, evidence quality, and other relevant factors.
In the hair relaxer litigation, such a structure would likely place the most severe cancer cases — particularly fatal ovarian cancer and aggressive uterine cancer with significant treatment and documented damages — in the highest tier, receiving the largest share of available compensation. Cases with less severe injuries, weaker evidence, or unclear product identification would fall into lower tiers with correspondingly lower compensation.
This system is imperfect in that it reduces individual human suffering to a point total. But in litigation involving thousands of plaintiffs and multiple defendants, it is the only practical mechanism for achieving consistent, transparent distribution of settlement funds at scale.
Multiple defendants in the hair relaxer MDL also means that separate settlements may be reached with different companies at different times. L’Oréal, with its substantial resources, is likely to be the primary financial player in any resolution. Smaller defendants may settle earlier, or for lower amounts, based on their individual financial positions and litigation exposure.
Uterine Cancer: Recognizing the Signs
Given the central role of uterine cancer in this litigation, it is worth noting the symptoms that warrant prompt medical attention. Any of the following should be discussed with a physician without delay:
- Unusual or unexplained vaginal bleeding, including bleeding between periods
- Vaginal bleeding or spotting after menopause
- Heavy, prolonged, or frequent vaginal bleeding in women over 40
- Pelvic pain or cramping in the lower abdominal region
- Clear or watery vaginal discharge, particularly after menopause
Early detection significantly improves outcomes for uterine cancer. Women with a history of long-term hair relaxer use who experience any of these symptoms should seek medical evaluation promptly and discuss their product use history with their physician.
The Health Equity Dimension
No honest accounting of this litigation can ignore the demographic reality at its center. Chemical hair relaxers have been used predominantly by Black women in the United States, often beginning in childhood and continuing for decades. Products like Dark and Lovely, Just for Me, and Optimum were specifically marketed to Black women and girls. The scientific studies showing elevated cancer risk reflect a population that has historically used these products at far higher rates and for far longer periods than other demographic groups.
Research has long puzzled over why Black women in the United States have higher rates of uterine cancer compared to white women, despite no established genetic predisposition. The hair relaxer research offers a potential explanation that points not to biology but to a product choice — one that the beauty industry aggressively promoted and that federal regulators failed to adequately scrutinize.
The $2.5 billion global Black hair care market, of which the hair relaxer segment alone represented nearly $720 million in 2021, was built substantially on the backs of consumers who were not told what was in the products they were buying. Plaintiffs’ attorneys have argued that this litigation is not only a product liability case but a health equity reckoning — a long-overdue accounting for decades of inadequate protection extended to a consumer population that has consistently faced both overexposure and underprotection.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is there a hair relaxer class action lawsuit? No. The litigation is structured as a multidistrict litigation, not a class action. Each plaintiff retains her own individual claim. This is significantly better for survivors than a class action, which would pay very little per person. Do not wait for a class action payout — that is not how this litigation works.
When will the hair relaxer lawsuit be settled? No global settlement has been announced. Most informed observers expect the settlement process to accelerate after the first bellwether trial results in 2027. A full global resolution could still be several years away. Settlement timelines in mass tort MDLs are notoriously difficult to predict.
Has anyone received a hair relaxer settlement yet? There are no publicly announced hair relaxer settlements to date. It is possible that some individual confidential settlements have occurred, but none have been disclosed publicly.
Can I still file if I did not keep the product packaging? Potentially yes. Product identification is important, but an attorney can evaluate what documentation exists — salon records, purchase history, photographs, and your own recollection — to reconstruct your product use history. Do not assume your claim is invalid because you no longer have receipts or packaging.
Does my cancer have to have been diagnosed recently? No. But you must still be within your state’s statute of limitations, which may be extended by the discovery rule if you only recently connected your diagnosis to your relaxer use. Contact a lawyer to evaluate your specific situation.
Are fibroid cases part of the lawsuit? Not in the federal MDL as currently structured. MDL leadership ruled in September 2025 that fibroid cases are excluded at this time. State court proceedings may handle these claims differently.
Which hair relaxer products are at issue? Products named across the complaints include Dark and Lovely, Just for Me, Optimum, ORS Olive Oil, Crème of Nature, African Pride, Motions, Soft and Beautiful, Affirm, and numerous others. If you used chemical hair relaxers or hair straighteners — regardless of exact brand — an attorney can evaluate whether your specific product exposure qualifies.
A Note on Case Value Estimates
The settlement ranges discussed on this page are informed projections based on the current state of the litigation, the strength of the scientific evidence, and comparable mass tort outcomes. They are not guarantees. Final compensation — whether through settlement or trial verdict — will depend on each plaintiff’s individual facts, the quality of available evidence, the specific defendants named, the applicable state law, and the ultimate course of litigation. Anyone seeking to understand the potential value of their specific claim should speak with an experienced mass tort attorney.