Hair Relaxer Lawsuit

Our lawyers are reviewing hair relaxer cancer lawsuits for women across the United States. These claims involve women who used chemical hair relaxers or hair straighteners for years and were later diagnosed with uterine cancer, including endometrial cancer, ovarian cancer, or serious uterine fibroids that led to a hysterectomy.

The federal hair relaxer litigation included 12,381 pending lawsuits as of October 1, 2026. The cases are moving through expert discovery and bellwether preparation in the Northern District of Illinois. This litigation has been going on for years, but there is still no global hair relaxer settlement or MDL payout program.  That does not mean our lawyers are not bullish on these cases. We are. It is just moving slowly, which is how it goes sometimes in the MDL mass torts. We still expect a favorable global settlement when all is said and done.

The strongest cases generally involve frequent, long-term use followed by uterine or ovarian cancer, a clear product history, and substantial treatment or reproductive injury.

The first federal bellwether trial is scheduled for September 7, 2027. Below, we cover the latest hair relaxer lawsuit updates, who may qualify, and our lawyers’ projected settlement amounts.

Hair Relaxer Lawsuit Update 2026

Our law firm follows the federal hair relaxer MDL and the related state court cases. The newest updates appear first.

See More Litigation Updates

September 14, 2026

Expert Skirmish

The latest expert fight in the hair relaxer MDL is over whether Dr. Pamela Schwingl can testify at trial. Dr. Schwingl is an epidemiologist plaintiffs selected after another general causation expert withdrew for reasons unrelated to the litigation.

Defendants want Judge Rowland to strike Dr. Schwingl’s report as untimely and outside the scope of CMO 15A. Plaintiffs argue the order expressly allows additional experts so long as they adopt previously disclosed general causation opinions. Schwingl did just that and her conclusion goes to the very core of this litigation: chemical hair relaxers can cause uterine and ovarian cancers.

The defense also argues Schwingl’s analysis is not identical enough to the earlier reports. But they were going to hit us either way on this one. If she had just parroted the prior expert exactly, the defense lawyers would have said she did not exercise independent scientific judgment, and she just copied someone else’s work. To her credit, she did not do that. She is a highly qualified epidemiologist with decades of experience in reproductive, environmental, and cancer epidemiology, including work connected to the National Toxicology Program’s cancer hazard evaluations. This is the exact kind of expert we need.

The court will rule on this dispute soon. This is not a pressing issue. Dr. Schwingl is not testifying in the first bellwether.

September 11, 2026

Arizona Attorney General Sues L’Oréal Over Hair Relaxer Cancer Warnings

Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes announced a consumer fraud lawsuit against L’Oréal USA, its parent company, and Softsheen over the marketing and sale of chemical hair relaxers. The state alleges that the companies failed to disclose cancer risks and marketed the products primarily to Black women, including children.

The state is pressing questions our lawyers want answered: what did the companies know, what did they tell consumers, and why were women not warned? Arizona still has to prove its allegations, and its lawsuit does not establish that a particular product caused an individual woman’s cancer. But a state attorney general pursuing the companies over their disclosures adds another legal challenge to the manufacturers’ position.

September 1, 2026

Judge Rowland Cuts the Hair Relaxer Bellwether Pool From Ten Cases to Five

On August 27, Judge Rowland narrowed the Hair Relaxer MDL bellwether pool from ten cases to five.

Also, Magistrate Judge Beth W. Jantz entered Case Management Order No. 24, keeping general discovery against the Second Wave defendants open through July 15, 2027. Outstanding interrogatory answers and document production responses are due September 29.

At the time of this update, we were still waiting on the exact trial date.

August 11, 2026

Hair Relaxer Litigation Is Finally Moving Toward the Evidence That Will Decide These Cases

This litigation has not moved quickly, but we are starting to get somewhere. The discovery stay, a break that had given defendants a chance to breathe, has been lifted for the Second Wave defendants. Expert reports are being exchanged in the bellwether cases, and the parties are moving toward depositions, summary judgment motions, and the next round of Daubert challenges.

That is good news for plaintiffs because defendants benefit from delay. Every month spent discussing schedules and settlement confidentiality is another month in which women with cancer are denied justice. Now the manufacturers have to produce documents, defend their experts, and explain what they knew about the chemicals in these products and the risks associated with long-term use.

If we survive the coming expert and summary judgment challenges as we fully expect, the pressure to resolve these claims will increase as bellwether trial preparation advances. In this MDL, like any consolidated litigation, trials, not endless procedural pauses, are what force defendants to put real settlement money on the table.

July 27, 2026

Judge Rowland Tells the Parties It Is Time to Litigate

Judge Mary Rowland has lifted the discovery stay that had protected the Second Wave defendants since December 2025. Those defendants wanted to extend the pause while confidential settlement discussions continued. Plaintiffs opposed another delay.

The judge asked whether the parties could report real progress and then gave them a direct answer about what should happen next: “It is time to litigate.” It is hard not to love that quote.

The Second Wave defendants must begin producing documents, answering discovery, and participating in the ordinary pretrial process. The parties must propose discovery deadlines before the August 20 status conference, with Magistrate Judge Beth Jantz supervising that work.

That is the right call. Settlement talks should not become a permanent shelter from discovery. If defendants want more time, they need to show progress. Otherwise, they can produce the documents and put their witnesses in deposition chairs.

July 9, 2026

Louisiana Plaintiff Files Ovarian Cancer Claim

A Baton Rouge woman has filed a new lawsuit alleging that decades of chemical hair relaxer use caused her ovarian cancer. She reports using relaxers from approximately 1979 through 2024 and receiving an ovarian cancer diagnosis in 2025.

The complaint names Godrej SON Holdings, L’Oréal USA, L’Oréal USA Products, SoftSheen Carson, and Strength of Nature. The identified products include Dark and Lovely Healthy Gloss 5 Shea Moisture No Lye Relaxer, Dark and Lovely Triple Nourished Silkening Relaxer, Optimum Multi Mineral Reduced pH Crème Relaxer, and Just For Me No Lye Texture Softener System with Hair and Scalp Butter.

This plaintiff alleges 45 years of use across several brands, showing how difficult product identification can be at trial. Packaging, photographs, salon records, family testimony, and her own recollection may have to reconstruct a history that began in 1979.

July 3, 2026

RNA Discovery Dispute Reaches Judge Jantz

The court held a status conference concerning discovery from RNA Corporation, a Second Wave defendant. Several bellwether defendants have asserted that RNA is a necessary party, or that another unnamed necessary party exists. Plaintiffs contend that the defendants have not supplied enough facts to support those defenses.

The court ordered short briefs addressing earlier RNA subpoenas and whether expedited discovery is appropriate. RNA must also identify when it can provide affidavits about whether it manufactured or supplied products associated with certain bellwether defendants. Defendants may be trying to shift some responsibility to RNA or argue that particular cases cannot proceed properly without it. Plaintiffs want the facts behind that defense now.

June 18, 2026

Court Narrows Bellwether Damages Proof

Judge Rowland limited which bellwether plaintiffs may seek certain economic damages. Four plaintiffs may pursue out-of-pocket medical expenses, while three may seek lost wages. Those plaintiffs must disclose the amounts claimed and the supporting information by the court’s deadlines.

The court also indicated that future medical expenses and lost earning capacity should be supported by expert testimony. Plaintiffs may describe their own pain and suffering, but projections of future financial losses generally require qualified proof. These rulings narrow the damages presentations and tell lawyers what documentation will be expected when the cases reach trial.

June 1, 2026

Pennsylvania Cases Continue Through Discovery

Twenty-five hair relaxer cases are pending in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas before Judge Joshua Roberts. The cases remain in written discovery. No plaintiff depositions, formal trial selection process, or trial date had been announced at the time of this update.

The Pennsylvania cases are well behind the federal MDL and the Illinois state court litigation. For now, there is no trial pressure coming from Philadelphia.

May 12, 2026

Plaintiffs Challenge Changes to L’Oréal Testimony

Plaintiffs asked Judge Rowland to review a ruling concerning changes L’Oréal made to the deposition transcript of its corporate representative, Enrico Gilberti III, Ph.D. Plaintiffs contend that the company used an errata sheet to make substantive revisions to sworn testimony concerning adverse event information.

Corporate testimony can be important because the witness speaks for the company on designated subjects. Plaintiffs want the original answers preserved and available for use when testing what L’Oréal knew, how it tracked safety information, and whether later changes are credible.

April 8, 2026

Judge Selects Ten Bellwether Cases

Judge Rowland selected a ten-case bellwether pool and revised the earlier selection process. The court excluded claims with complications that could make the results less useful, including certain cases involving overlapping talc allegations, other cancer diagnoses, significant memory issues, or only one or two defendants.

Judge Rowland plainly wants verdicts the parties cannot shrug off as oddball results. The idea is to teach the parties about the settlement value of these claims by seeing what typical verdicts might look like. That is why she removed cases with facts likely to distract jurors from the main disputes.

March 9, 2026

Expert Discovery Moves Toward Daubert Challenges

The court established procedures and page limits for motions challenging expert testimony. Defendants may challenge plaintiffs’ general causation experts, and plaintiffs will defend the studies and opinions they need to present their cases to juries.

This is a decisive stage. If plaintiffs retain enough expert proof to reach juries, defendants face the risk of multiple cancer trials. If major opinions are excluded, particular diseases or theories could become harder to pursue.

February 3, 2026

Bellwether Discovery Advances

Defendants had deposed 29 of the 32 bellwether plaintiffs, with the remaining depositions expected shortly thereafter. Disputes continued over third-party witnesses and product-specific corporate testimony.

The discovery shows what these trials will require. A plaintiff needs more than a diagnosis and a general history of relaxer use. The parties will test brands, dates, frequency, salon practices, warnings, medical risk factors, treating physician opinions, and the reliability of memories reaching back many years.

January 6, 2026

Defendants and Product Lines Under Review

Our firm is concentrating on claims involving products associated with L’Oréal, SoftSheen Carson, Strength of Nature, Godrej, Namaste, Dabur, Revlon, and other defendants identified in the litigation. Product lines include Dark and Lovely, Optimum, ORS Olive Oil, Just For Me, Motions, African Pride, TCB Naturals, Soft and Beautiful, and UltraSheen.

Who May Qualify for a Hair Relaxer Cancer Lawsuit?

Our firm is primarily reviewing claims involving repeated use of chemical hair relaxers followed by uterine cancer, endometrial cancer, ovarian cancer, or significant fibroid injuries that required a hysterectomy. We need the diagnosis, but we also need the exposure story: what you used, how often you used it, when you began, and when you stopped.

A potential claim is generally stronger when:

• The plaintiff used chemical relaxers frequently for many years.
• She can identify one or more brands and approximate periods of use.
• Medical records clearly document the diagnosis and treatment.
• The diagnosis occurred at an age or under circumstances that make the exposure history particularly significant.
• The treatment involved hysterectomy, chemotherapy, radiation, major surgery, infertility, recurrence, or other substantial harm.
• The claim is filed within the applicable legal deadline.

You do not need an old receipt for every box of relaxer. Few people kept receipts for cosmetic products purchased decades ago. Useful evidence may include photographs, packaging, salon records, testimony from relatives or stylists, loyalty account histories, social media posts, and a consistent account of the products used in different periods of your life.

Which Hair Relaxer Products Are Involved?

Product lines identified in the litigation include Dark and Lovely, Optimum, ORS Olive Oil, Just For Me, Motions, African Pride, TCB Naturals, Soft and Beautiful, and UltraSheen. Tell us which products you remember and approximately when you used them. Ownership and formulations can change, so the brand name and years of use both matter.

Claims Involving Hairstylists and Cosmetologists

Professional stylists mixed, applied, and rinsed chemical relaxers day after day, often in enclosed salons. That history can present a powerful exposure story. The hard part may be identifying which companies supplied the products used across an entire career and how much exposure came through the scalp, skin, or air.

Chemical Hair Relaxers and Repeated Exposure

Chemical relaxers change hair texture by breaking bonds within the hair’s keratin structure. They are usually applied near the roots and left in place for a processing period before being rinsed out. Because new growth retains its natural texture, many users receive retouches every four to eight weeks.

That repeated application is central to the lawsuits. Many plaintiffs began using relaxers as children or teenagers and continued for decades. The products were applied close to the scalp, sometimes when the scalp had burns, sores, or irritation that could affect chemical absorption.

Plaintiffs allege that some relaxers contained or exposed users to chemicals with endocrine disrupting properties and that manufacturers did not adequately investigate or warn about possible cancer risks. The defendants dispute that their products caused the cancers alleged in the litigation.

Ingredients and Cosmetic Labeling

A 2018 Silent Spring Institute study evaluated hair products commonly marketed to Black women and identified numerous chemicals associated with endocrine activity and other health concerns. Some detected ingredients were not listed on product labels.

Cosmetic labeling rules have historically allowed fragrance mixtures to be identified without listing every individual component. Women buying these products could read the box and still have no idea what was hidden inside a fragrance mixture. That gap will receive close attention when plaintiffs question company witnesses about formulation, testing, and warnings.

What Does “Perm” Mean in These Cases?

People often use “perm” to describe a chemical relaxer, especially when discussing products intended to straighten tightly curled hair. The terms are not always medically or chemically interchangeable. A traditional curling perm may use different products and does not necessarily present the same exposure evidence.

Most claims in this litigation concern chemical straighteners and relaxers. If you used the word “perm” for your treatment, the first question is what product was actually applied and whether it was intended to straighten or relax the hair.

Uterine and Endometrial Cancer Claims

Endometrial cancer begins in the lining of the uterus and accounts for most uterine cancer diagnoses. Uterine sarcoma is less common and begins in the muscle or supporting tissue of the uterus. A medical record may use “uterine cancer” as the broader category and then identify a more specific diagnosis.

A 2022 study published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute examined chemical straightener use and uterine cancer among participants in the National Institutes of Health Sister Study. Researchers estimated that 1.64 percent of women who never used straighteners would develop uterine cancer by age 70, compared with 4.05 percent of frequent users.

Frequent use was defined as more than four uses during the prior year. Researchers did not collect brand or ingredient information, a limitation defendants will press hard. But we have an answer. The size of the association, evidence from other studies, and expert testimony about how endocrine-disrupting chemicals contribute to uterine cancer are key points our experts have made.

Hair Relaxers and Ovarian Cancer

Ovarian cancer is less common than uterine cancer and is frequently diagnosed after it has spread. Treatment may involve removal of the ovaries, fallopian tubes, uterus, or surrounding tissue, followed by chemotherapy and other care.

An earlier Sister Study analysis reported an association between frequent use of straighteners and ovarian cancer. That ovarian cancer research is separate from the 2022 uterine cancer study. The number of ovarian cancer cases in the study was limited, and the authors called for additional research.

Ovarian cancer claims can carry substantial damages because treatment is often aggressive and the prognosis can be serious. The legal challenge remains causation. Plaintiffs must connect a reliable history of chemical relaxer use to the disease through admissible expert testimony while addressing genetic, reproductive, medical, and environmental risk factors. We think we can do that in this litigation.

Scientific Evidence and the Causation Fight

The federal cases will not be decided merely by showing that a plaintiff used relaxers and later developed cancer. Plaintiffs need qualified experts who can explain why the scientific literature supports a general causal relationship and why the products were a substantial factor in an individual woman’s disease.

The evidence includes epidemiological studies reporting associations with uterine and ovarian cancer, research identifying endocrine-disrupting chemicals in some hair products, evidence concerning absorption through the scalp, and studies examining biological mechanisms. Plaintiffs will argue that these findings reinforce one another.

Defendants are expected to emphasize limitations in the research, including self-reported product use, lack of brand-specific data, relatively small numbers of some cancers, possible confounding factors, and uncertainty about which chemical or mixture could produce the alleged effect. They will also challenge specific causation in individual cases.

The Daubert rulings will determine which opinions juries may hear. If the core causation testimony survives, more than 12,000 pending cases move closer to trial with experts permitted to connect relaxer use to cancer. That is the ruling defendants do not want.

Is There a Hair Relaxer Class Action Lawsuit?

People frequently call this a hair relaxer class action lawsuit, but the personal injury cases are coordinated in a federal multidistrict litigation, or MDL, rather than a traditional class action. The MDL is pending before Judge Mary Rowland in the Northern District of Illinois.

Coordination allows one judge to manage common discovery, expert challenges, pretrial motions, and bellwether preparation. Each plaintiff still has an individual claim. She must prove her own product use, diagnosis, causation, damages, and compliance with the statute of limitations.

Hair relaxer lawsuits are also pending in state courts, including coordinated proceedings in Illinois and cases in Pennsylvania. State court schedules and rulings may develop separately from the federal MDL and could create additional trial pressure.

Separate medical monitoring plaintiffs are seeking class certification for claims involving people who have not been diagnosed with the cancers alleged in the personal injury cases. We are not handling those monitoring claims.

Hair Relaxer Lawsuit Settlement Amounts

Our lawyers estimate that many strong uterine cancer claims could fall between $150,000 and $750,000 in a negotiated mass tort settlement. Many claims would likely resolve toward the lower portion of that range. Cases involving a young plaintiff, advanced cancer, extensive treatment, infertility, recurrence, extraordinary economic loss, or death could be worth more.

Those are our estimates, not numbers you can take to the bank. The strongest product histories will matter along with the injuries.

What About Ovarian Cancer Settlement Amounts?

Our $150,000 to $750,000 estimate concerns strong uterine cancer claims. We are not assigning a separate ovarian cancer range yet. Ovarian cancer can involve devastating injuries, but settlement value will also depend on whether plaintiffs can establish causation and identify the responsible products.

Factors That Could Drive Settlement Value

Hair Relaxer Lawsuit Fibroids Payout

Fibroid claims should be considered very differently.   They are not a part of the MDL and are being pursued mostly in state courth.  One of the problems withe terine fibroids cases is they are are common, and proving that a chemical relaxer caused a particular woman’s fibroids can be difficult. A fibroid claim becomes more substantial when the condition led to a hysterectomy, infertility, repeated procedures, serious bleeding, or other major complications.

There is no hair relaxer lawsuit fibroids payout although we believe there have been isolated small settlements with some manufacturers.  We would not use the cancer range we set out above as a shortcut for valuing a fibroid claim. The likelihood of settlements in these cases is far more speculative.  To put in context, we are taking these cases but we do not feel as strongly about their chances of success as the hair relaxer cancer claims.

How Would a Settlement Work?

A woman with Stage IV ovarian cancer should not receive the same payout as someone who recovered after less invasive treatment. Any broad settlement will need a way to account for diagnosis, treatment, fertility loss, product history, and economic damages. Lawyers may call it a matrix or a points system. The name is less important than whether it separates the strongest cases from the weaker ones and pays the strongest cases fairly.

Multiple defendants make the money side harder. L’Oréal can fund a substantial agreement. Revlon presents a different problem because of its bankruptcy and available insurance. A single deal covering every product and defendant is possible, but separate agreements would not be surprising.

When Will the Hair Relaxer Lawsuit Be Settled?

There is no settlement date. What drivers settlements in these types of cases is an impending trial date.

Unfortunately, the MDL process moves slowly and maybe this case has moved even more slowly than most.  The first federal trial is scheduled for September 7, 2027. State court cases will move on different schedules but the expectation right now is that his will be the first hair relaxer trial anywhere.   If that date holds, we think we will see a lot of pressure on the defendants.  But we think, again our opinion, most of these cases are very strong claims for plaintiffs.

Deadline for Filing a Claim

The deadline for filing a chemical hair relaxer lawsuit depends on the state law that governs your claim. States use different limitation periods, discovery rules, statutes of repose, and tolling doctrines. The diagnosis date is important, but it may not be the only date that controls.

In many states, a discovery rule can delay the beginning of the limitations period until a person knew or reasonably should have known that an injury might be connected to a product. The application of that rule is extremely complicated.  We find that it is applied in cases that would surprise you and it does not apply in other case where common sense will tell you it should.  So the answer is to call a lawyer sooner rather than later.

Claims involving Revlon may also be subject to separate bankruptcy plan requirements and deadlines. A state statute of limitations is not the only deadline a lawyer may need to examine.

You can review general personal injury filing deadlines by state, but do not use a general chart to calculate the deadline in an individual hair relaxer case. Speak with a lawyer promptly so the governing law and relevant dates can be reviewed.

Questions and Answers

What is the latest update on the hair relaxer lawsuit?

The first federal bellwether trial is scheduled for September 7, 2027. The bellwether pool has been reduced to five cases, and expert challenges and discovery are moving forward. The October 1, 2026 JPML report lists 12,381 pending federal lawsuits.

Has anyone received a settlement from the hair relaxer lawsuit?

There is no announced global hair relaxer settlement or MDL payout program. Our lawyers expect the strongest settlement pressure closer to the September 2027 trial, although negotiations could produce an agreement earlier. It is hard to imagine defendants would be foolish enough to let one of these cases go to trial before there is a settlement of most of these claims. But we will see.

When will the hair relaxer lawsuit be settled?

No one can provide a reliable settlement date. The first federal trial is scheduled for September 7, 2027. That is still pretty far away. The expert rulings and the approach of that trial should give both sides a much clearer idea of what they risk by refusing to settle.

What are the projected hair relaxer lawsuit settlement amounts?

Our lawyers estimate that many strong uterine cancer claims could fall between $150,000 and $750,000 in a negotiated settlement. Some cases may be worth less, while exceptional cancer, infertility, and wrongful death claims could be worth more. For sure, these estimates are speculative but they reflect our best estimates based on our experience.

How do I know whether I qualify?

You may have a potential claim if you used chemical hair relaxers frequently for years and were later diagnosed with uterine cancer, endometrial cancer, ovarian cancer, or serious fibroids that required a hysterectomy. A lawyer will also need to examine your brands, dates of use, medical records, alternative risk factors, and filing deadline. This litigation has been going on for years so you really do not want to wait to talk to a lawyer to determine if you may have a viable claim.

Is there a hair relaxer class action lawsuit?

The personal injury cases are part of a federal MDL, not a traditional class action. The MDL coordinates common proceedings while each woman keeps an individual lawsuit. Separate medical monitoring plaintiffs are seeking class certification, but those claims involve people who have not been diagnosed with the cancers alleged in the personal injury cases. We are not handling those monitoring claims.

Will Revlon’s bankruptcy affect settlement payouts?

Revlon’s bankruptcy complicates collection. Insurance may provide a source of recovery, but coverage, available limits, and compliance with the bankruptcy plan’s claim requirements can affect what a claimant can recover.

Contact Our Lawyers

Our lawyers are reviewing hair relaxer cancer claims throughout the United States. If you used chemical relaxers for years and later developed uterine cancer, endometrial cancer, ovarian cancer, or severe fibroid complications, we can evaluate your product history, medical records, and filing deadline.