Hair Relaxer Lawsuit | 2026 Latest Updates

Women who used chemical hair relaxers and straighteners have sued the makers. They say the products caused uterine, ovarian and other cancers and reproductive injuries. The cases are combined as MDL No. 3060 in federal court in Illinois.

On September 1, 2026, the MDL had 12,129 pending actions, the Judicial Panel reported. No settlement, verdict or trial has taken place. The court has picked September 7, 2027 for the first bellwether trial.

Plaintiffs also allege that the companies failed to warn women about the risks of these products. Judge Mary M. Rowland let the failure to warn claims go forward in 2023.

Latest Hair Relaxer Lawsuit Updates

October 1, 2026: Court Resolves Duplicate Filing Issues

Court docket entry 2053 records that at an October 1 status hearing, the parties told Judge Mary M. Rowland they had resolved three disputes: duplicate filings, short form complaint delinquencies and compliance with Case Management Order 10-A [1].

The parties also agreed to withdraw defendants’ motion to strike a plaintiffs’ expert report. Entry 2052 withdraws that motion without prejudice.

September 24, 2026: Court Sets First Bellwether Trial Date

Judge Rowland set the first bellwether trial for September 7, 2027, in docket entry 2041. She also set eight case management conferences in 2027 before the trial.

The conferences are on January 28, February 25, March 25, April 22, May 27, June 24, July 29 and August 26, 2027. Magistrate Judge Beth W. Jantz set discovery status hearings for the same dates in entry 2045.

September 1, 2026: Pending Cases Reach 12,129

The pending-dockets report from the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation counted 12,129 actions pending in MDL No. 3060 before Judge Rowland [2].

The MDL ranks fourth among all pending dockets by number of actions. That number does not count claims or people.

August 27, 2026: Court Adopts Bellwether and Expert Schedule

After an August 20 status hearing, the court adopted agreed dates in docket entry 2016. Defendants’ case-specific expert reports were due September 25, 2026. Plaintiffs’ rebuttal reports are due October 13, 2026.

The parties must file a proposed order by October 21, 2026 to cut the bellwether cases from ten to five. Expert discovery on those five closes December 21, 2026.

August 6, 2026: FDA Formaldehyde Rule Goes to Federal Review

A proposed rule from the FDA on formaldehyde and formaldehyde-releasing chemicals in hair smoothing and hair straightening products was received for Executive Order 12866 review, a federal regulatory review [3].

The rule would prohibit these chemicals, including methylene glycol, in smoothing or straightening products that are applied to the hair and heated.

August 3, 2026: Plaintiffs File Class Certification Replies

Plaintiffs filed replies in docket entries 1993 and 1994 in support of their motion to certify medical-monitoring classes. One reply is as to Revlon and one is as to all defendants.

Defendants had opposed the motion, and as of October 2, 2026, the court has not ruled on class certification. Medical monitoring is one of the remedies the master complaint seeks.

May 5, 2026: Rule 702 Motions Target Causation Experts

On May 5, 2026, the Strength of Nature defendants filed one of two Rule 702 motions. It asks the court to exclude plaintiffs’ general causation experts for all defendants [4].

Plaintiffs filed a motion to exclude specific opinions of certain defense experts on general causation. The motions are docket entries 1828 and 1832. As of October 2, 2026, neither has been ruled on.

April 2, 2026: Court Selects Ten-Case Bellwether Pool

Judge Rowland chose ten cases as the bellwether trial pool in docket entry 1781. The order left out cases with only one or two defendants, plaintiffs with another cancer diagnosis and a plaintiff with a talc claim.

It also left out plaintiffs with memory loss, mental health issues or learning disabilities. On April 22, the judge swapped one plaintiff after finding that a chosen case had only two defendants (entry 1809).

January 8, 2026: Science Day Held in the MDL

Judge Rowland held a Science Day on January 8, 2026. The Plaintiff Steering Committee and defendants presented experts on the scientific and medical issues in the litigation [5].

The court noted the hearing in minute entry 1664, entered January 15, 2026. The general causation motions came later, on May 5, 2026.

November 13, 2023: Court Rules on the Motion to Dismiss

Judge Rowland granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ joint motion to dismiss. The court dismissed claims of negligent misrepresentation, fraud and fraudulent concealment, in its Memorandum Opinion and Order, Dkt. 291 [6].

Claims of negligence, strict liability design defect and failure to warn, and warranty went forward. The court dismissed Dabur International and Dermoviva for lack of personal jurisdiction.

August 3, 2023: Court Adopts the Short Form Complaint

Case Management Order No. 7 adopted a Short Form Complaint for the MDL on August 3, 2023 (Dkt. 175) [7]. Plaintiffs check the products and defendants they name on the form.

In every directly filed action in the MDL, the Master Complaint together with the Short Form Complaint is deemed the operative complaint.

May 15, 2023: Master Long Form Complaint Filed

Plaintiffs’ Leadership filed the Master Long Form Complaint on May 15, 2023 (ECF 106). A sample Master Short Form Complaint and Jury Demand came with it, as Case Management Order No. 7 records.

The complaint pleads fifteen counts. They include negligence, strict liability, breach of warranty, fraud, wrongful death and loss of consortium. The relief it asks for includes compensatory and punitive damages, restitution, medical monitoring and equitable relief. These are allegations.

February 6, 2023: JPML Creates the Hair Relaxer MDL

The JPML Transfer Order centralized the hair relaxer actions as MDL No. 3060 in the Northern District of Illinois before Judge Mary M. Rowland [8].

The order, Doc. 134, counted 53 actions in 19 districts. When the motion was filed, the Panel had counted nine actions in four districts.

January 23, 2023: CBC Reports Proposed B.C. Class Action Against L’Oreal

CBC News reported a proposed class action in the B.C. Supreme Court against L’Oreal, Strength of Nature and Dabur USA [9].

The suit alleges that hair relaxers are “dangerous, defective and not fit for purpose.” CBC reported that none of the claims had been proven. The claim was not yet certified, and the defendants had not filed responses.

October 24, 2022: NBC Chicago Reports Jenny Mitchell’s Federal Lawsuit

NBC Chicago reported that Jenny Mitchell, 32, filed a federal lawsuit against L’Oreal USA in Chicago [10]. She says chemical hair relaxers and straighteners she used for more than two decades caused her uterine cancer.

L’Oreal said it was “confident in the safety of our products” and believes the recent lawsuits filed against it have “no legal merit.”

October 17, 2022: NIH Reports Hair Straightener Study

An NIH news release announced results from the NIEHS Sister Study, published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute [11].

Women who often used chemical hair straightening products were more than twice as likely to develop uterine cancer as women who did not. The finding shows an association and does not prove cause.

What Is a Hair Relaxer?

According to the FDA, “Hair relaxers are used to make your hair straight. Both hair dye and hair relaxers can hurt your skin, hair, and eyes, especially if you are not careful” [12].

The Panel’s transfer order, which created the MDL, calls the products at issue “chemical hair straightening or hair relaxer products.”

Who May Be Affected?

Women who have used chemical hair relaxers or straighteners and later had a reproductive cancer may be affected. The court’s Short Form Complaint lists uterine, endometrial and ovarian cancer, plus “other injuries and/or additional details.”

The Panel grouped the cases because they share common questions of fact about the alleged injuries. It also noted the October 2022 NIH study.

Whether a claim fits depends on one woman’s own history. An individual legal review looks at her product use, diagnosis and records.

Reported Injuries or Damages

Plaintiffs allege that phthalates and other endocrine-disrupting chemicals in some relaxers enter the body through the scalp and interfere with natural hormone production. No court has found that any product caused any injury.

They also allege breast cancer, endometriosis (see hair relaxer endometriosis claims), uterine fibroids (see hair relaxer fibroids lawsuit) and other reproductive injuries.

Chang et al., the Sister Study analysis NIH announced, reported a hazard ratio of 2.55 for frequent use of straighteners and uterine cancer [13]. The group had 33,947 women and 378 uterine cancer cases.

White and colleagues, in “Use of hair products in relation to ovarian cancer risk,” call the 2.19 hazard ratio for frequent straightener or relaxer use among 40,559 women the first evidence of a possible relationship [14].

In the Black Women’s Health Study, Wise and colleagues reported an incidence rate ratio of 1.17 for hair relaxer use and fibroids [15].

The Study of Environment, Lifestyle, and Fibroids found a hazard ratio of 1.51 for recent use, with a range of 0.94 to 2.42 that includes no increase [16]. These are associations and do not prove cause.

Recall and Regulatory Background

The FDA regulates cosmetics, including hair smoothing products. FDA’s hair smoothing page says it does not approve cosmetics. Makers are responsible for the safety and labeling of their products and ingredients [17].

FDA’s formaldehyde rule, RIN 0910-AI83, is at the proposed rule stage and has not been published in the Federal Register. FDA’s regulatory agenda targets a notice of proposed rulemaking in November 2026 [18].

Evidence to Preserve

Keep records that show which products a woman used and what happened after:

• Names and brands of every relaxer or straightener used, with receipts, order emails and salon records.
• Photos of the packaging, labels and any leftover product. Keep the products instead of throwing them away.
• Dates and length of use, plus where and how the products were bought and stored.
• Medical records, pathology reports and the date of each diagnosis, all kept together.
• Records of burns, scalp lesions or other reactions after using any relaxer or straightener.
• Emails, letters and messages with the maker, the salon or doctors about the products or the diagnosis.

Filing Deadlines

Deadlines for filing an injury claim are set by state law. They vary with where the woman lives and when the exposure, the illness and the diagnosis happened. Some states start the clock at the diagnosis.

A late filing can end a claim even if the facts are strong. If you are thinking about a claim, check with a lawyer soon.

Frequently Asked Questions

What Does the Research Say About Hair Relaxers and Uterine Cancer?

Research on hair relaxers and uterine cancer includes an NIH estimate that by age 70, 1.64% of women who never used straighteners and 4.05% of frequent users would develop uterine cancer. The researchers did not collect brand or ingredient information.

Which Companies Are Named in the Hair Relaxer Lawsuits?

Companies named in the hair relaxer lawsuits include Dudley Beauty Corp., John Paul Mitchell Systems, Murray’s Worldwide and RNA Corporation. The September 24, 2026 joint status report lists 21 defendant names in all. Being named is an allegation and not a finding.

When Is the First Hair Relaxer Bellwether Trial?

The first hair relaxer bellwether trial is set for September 7, 2027, and the court has not named which case will go first. Docket entry 2016 sets the next status hearing for October 23, 2026.

Has the FDA Banned Formaldehyde in Hair Straighteners?

No, the FDA has not banned formaldehyde in hair straighteners. The FDA says it does monitor the safety of hair dyes and relaxers. It asks anyone with itchy or raw skin, scabs or hair loss to report it at 1-800-332-1088.

What Happens If a Plaintiff Misses an MDL Deadline in a Hair Relaxer Lawsuit?

A plaintiff who misses an MDL deadline in a hair relaxer lawsuit can be dismissed. Entry 1961 of June 30, 2026 dismissed with prejudice plaintiffs who missed the June 25, 2026 short form deadline.

When Are Case-Specific Summary Judgment Motions Due in the MDL?

Case-specific summary judgment motions in the MDL are due January 11, 2027, under docket entry 2016. Oppositions are due February 10, 2027, and replies are due February 24, 2027. Case-specific Rule 702 motions are due on the same January date.

References

1. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/66801859/in-re-hair-relaxer-marketing-sales-practices-and-products-liability/?order_by=desc
2. https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/Pending_MDL_Dockets_By_Actions_Pending-September-1-2026.pdf
3. https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eoDetails?rrid=1496363
4. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/66801859/in-re-hair-relaxer-marketing-sales-practices-and-products-liability/?page=3&order_by=desc
5. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/66801859/in-re-hair-relaxer-marketing-sales-practices-and-products-liability/?page=4&order_by=desc
6. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ilnd-1_23-cv-00818/pdf/USCOURTS-ilnd-1_23-cv-00818-0.pdf
7. https://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/_assets/_documents/_forms/_cmecf/MDL3060/CMO%20No.%207.pdf
8. https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-3060-Transfer_Order-1-23.pdf
9. https://www.cbc.ca/lite/story/1.6721662
10. https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/woman-claims-hair-straightener-caused-uterine-cancer-files-lawsuit-in-chicago/2976104/
11. https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/hair-straightening-chemicals-associated-higher-uterine-cancer-risk
12. https://www.fda.gov/consumers/free-publications-women/hair-dye-and-hair-relaxers
13. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9949582/
14. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8561257/
15. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3282879/
16. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12849720/
17. https://www.fda.gov/cosmetics/cosmetic-products/hair-smoothing-products-release-formaldehyde-when-heated
18. https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=202510&RIN=0910-AI83