Hair Relaxer Cancer Lawsuits

May 29, 2026 – Handwritten Plaintiff Fact Sheet Dispute Ends for Now

One of the more interesting discovery fights in the bellwether cases ended without a ruling on the merits. Defendants had sought the handwritten draft of one plaintiff’s original Plaintiff Fact Sheet, arguing that the product list changed across later amended versions and that the original handwritten draft was relevant to product identification.

Plaintiffs pushed back hard. They argued the handwritten draft was privileged work product and part of the protected process of preparing discovery responses with counsel. That is not a small issue. If defendants could get every draft of every fact sheet, every correction and clarification could become a new deposition exhibit.

The issue ended when defendants withdrew the request. The court denied the request as moot. So plaintiffs won that round, at least for now. But the larger fight over product identification and amended fact sheets is not going away.

May 25, 2026 – Pennsylvania Hair Relaxer Cases Remain in Discovery

There are 25 hair relaxer cases pending in the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas in Philadelphia County. Those cases are coordinated before Judge Joshua Roberts and remain in written discovery.

No plaintiff depositions have taken place yet, and there is no formal trial selection process or trial date in Pennsylvania. So this docket is behind Illinois and Georgia in terms of immediate trial pressure.

Still, Philadelphia is worth watching. Pennsylvania state courts can move product liability cases efficiently once a trial track is set. If these cases begin moving toward plaintiff depositions and trial selection, Philadelphia could become another meaningful pressure point outside the MDL.

May 21, 2026 – Bellwether Discovery Enters the Final Stretch

The remaining ten bellwether cases are in the final phase of fact discovery, with the deadline set for June 10, 2026. These ten cases are the pool from which the first federal trial cases are expected to be narrowed.

This is where the litigation gets more case-specific. The broad science still matters, but now both sides are drilling into product use, medical history, treating physicians, family witnesses, stylists, photographs, social media, damages, and alternative causation.

That may sound like routine discovery, but it is not just housekeeping. The cases that survive this process will shape the first trials. Those trials will shape settlement values. So every fight over proof and witnesses has more weight than it might seem from the outside.

May 21, 2026 – Defendants Push for Decades of Hair Photos

One of the biggest discovery fights concerns photographs. Defendants are asking several bellwether plaintiffs to produce pictures showing their hair before, during, and after alleged relaxer use. In some cases, plaintiffs say the requests span 50 to 60 years.

Defendants want these photos because product use is a central issue. They want to see whether a plaintiff’s hair appeared relaxed or natural during different time periods, and they want to use gaps in the photo record to challenge exposure history.

Plaintiffs say this is overbroad and late. They have already produced representative photos and answered deposition questions about them. Asking someone to produce a picture for every year going back to the 1960s or 1970s is a lot. Most people do not have that kind of visual archive of their life, especially before cell phones and cloud storage.

May 21, 2026 – Social Media and Metadata Become a Discovery Fight

Defendants are also pushing for social media posts, photographs, and metadata from bellwether plaintiffs. Their argument is that social media may show hairstyle history, product use, claimed injuries, daily activities, and damages.

Plaintiffs are not refusing to produce responsive photos or social media. The fight is over the format. Plaintiffs say the parties agreed to produce materials through MDL Centrality, and that platform does not provide the kind of forensic metadata defendants now say they want.

This is a technical fight, but it matters. Metadata can affect dates, source information, and authenticity arguments. Defendants want the cleanest possible record for impeachment and trial use. Plaintiffs want discovery to stay reasonable and consistent with the production system everyone agreed to use.

May 20, 2026 – New Wrongful Death Lawsuit Filed in MDL

A new wrongful death lawsuit was filed in the hair relaxer MDL by the family of a South Carolina woman who allegedly developed ovarian and uterine cancer after decades of chemical hair relaxer use.

The complaint alleges use from approximately 1994 through 2022 and identifies Just For Me products. The named defendants include Godrej SON Holdings, Inc. and Strength of Nature, LLC. The family brings wrongful death and survival claims, along with the standard product liability allegations adopted from the MDL master complaint.

Wrongful death cases are especially important in this litigation. They put the real stakes in front of everyone. These are not just claims about product labels or regulatory theories. Families are alleging that women died after years of exposure to products that were marketed heavily and allegedly sold without adequate cancer warnings.

May 14, 2026 – Defendants Accused of Late Discovery Push

Plaintiffs are pushing back against what they describe as a late defense discovery push in the bellwether cases. Defendants say they are trying to cure discovery deficiencies before fact discovery closes. Plaintiffs say defendants are using “deficiency” letters as a way to serve new requests on an accelerated schedule.

The timing is the issue. The bellwether cases were selected on April 2, but plaintiffs say many of the defense letters did not arrive until early May, just weeks before the June 10 fact discovery cutoff.

This is the kind of fight that happens when trial selection gets closer. Defendants want to lock down every weakness before cases are chosen for trial. Plaintiffs want the court to stop defendants from turning the final discovery phase into a last-minute document hunt.

May 12, 2026 – L’Oréal Deposition Testimony Fight

Plaintiffs’ lawyers are challenging L’Oréal’s use of the errata process after a corporate deposition. The dispute involves changes made after the deposition of L’Oréal corporate witness Enrico Gilberti III, Ph.D.

An errata sheet is supposed to correct transcription errors or clarify testimony. Plaintiffs say L’Oréal used it to rewrite sworn corporate testimony, including testimony about serious adverse events involving chemical hair relaxers.

This could become a meaningful issue. Corporate deposition testimony is supposed to bind the company. If defendants can materially change answers after the fact, plaintiffs will argue that depositions become drafts instead of testimony. That is not how the process is supposed to work.

May 8, 2026 – MDL Case Count Reaches 11,526

The hair relaxer MDL reached 11,526 pending cases as of the May JPML report. That was an increase from 11,371 pending cases in April.

The growth was not massive, but it was steady. At this point in the litigation, steady growth is more meaningful than a short-term spike. It means new plaintiffs are still filing even as the litigation becomes more selective and discovery-heavy.

This also confirms what has been clear for a while: the hair relaxer litigation is not fading away. It is moving into the harder stage, where science, bellwethers, and state court trials begin to shape value.

May 7, 2026 – Georgia State Court Schedule Modified

The Georgia state court proceedings in DeKalb County received a new expert discovery and bellwether selection schedule. Plaintiffs disclosed 16 general causation experts, including eight experts disclosed by non-MDL participating plaintiffs’ counsel.

Defendants asked for more time to evaluate the expanded expert slate, and the Georgia court adjusted the schedule. Defendants’ general expert disclosures are due July 17, 2026. Expert discovery closes September 8, 2026. Expert challenges and bellwether selections are due October 8, 2026.

The Georgia track matters because it is not simply waiting around for the federal MDL. It is developing its own scientific record and trial-selection process. That gives plaintiffs another place to create pressure.

April 28, 2026 – Plaintiffs Serve Affirmative Defense Discovery

Bellwether plaintiffs served a second set of interrogatories on each defendant seeking the factual basis for defendants’ affirmative defenses.

That sounds technical, but it is important. If defendants are going to argue alternative causation, failure to mitigate, statute of limitations, lack of product identification, or other defenses, plaintiffs want to know the facts behind those defenses now.

Defendants want to delay some of those responses until the bellwether pool narrows further. Plaintiffs want the answers before trial cases are selected. That makes sense. You cannot fairly evaluate trial cases if the defense theories remain vague.

April 19, 2026 – New Uterine Cancer Lawsuit Filed

A new hair relaxer lawsuit was filed in the Northern District of Illinois alleging that chemical hair straightening products caused the plaintiff to develop uterine cancer.

The complaint is a short-form filing that adopts the MDL’s Master Long Form Complaint. That means the plaintiff is relying on the same core allegations that appear across the MDL: defective design, failure to warn, negligence, fraud, breach of warranty, and related product liability claims.

These new filings are not surprising. Uterine cancer remains one of the central injuries in the litigation, and plaintiffs continue to file cases tied to long-term use of brands like Dark & Lovely, Just For Me, Motions, ORS, and other chemical relaxer products.

April 2, 2026 – Ten Bellwether Trial Cases Selected

The court selected ten bellwether cases to move into the next phase of discovery. This is a big procedural step because the original bellwether pool was larger, and the litigation is now moving toward the smaller group of cases that may actually be tried first.

Bellwether selection matters because these cases are test cases. They are supposed to teach both sides what juries might do with the evidence. They also help the parties evaluate settlement value.

The cases still need more discovery, and the final trial cases will be narrowed further. But the process is now much more focused than it was a year ago.

March 26, 2026 – Medical Monitoring Class Certification Motion Filed

Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification on medical monitoring claims. The proposed class claims are for former hair relaxer users who have not been diagnosed with cancer but who allegedly face increased risk and need medical monitoring.

This is different from the individual cancer cases. A medical monitoring class is about future risk and early detection, not compensation for an existing cancer diagnosis.

The motion gives the litigation another lane. The personal injury cases remain the main event, but medical monitoring could create broader exposure for defendants if the court allows any part of the class claims to proceed.

January 8, 2026 – Science Day Gives the Court a Preview of the Causation Fight

The court held Science Day in January, giving the parties a chance to educate the judge on the science behind the hair relaxer claims.

Science Day is not a trial. It is not an evidentiary hearing. But it matters because it gives the judge context before ruling on expert challenges. In a case built around endocrine disruption, hormone-related cancers, epidemiology, toxicology, and product chemistry, that context is important.

The big fight is whether plaintiffs can reliably connect long-term use of chemical hair relaxers to uterine cancer, ovarian cancer, endometrial cancer, and related injuries. That issue will drive everything else.

January 4, 2026 – Settlement Still Depends on Trial Pressure

The hair relaxer litigation is moving forward, but a global settlement still does not appear imminent.

That is not surprising. In mass tort litigation, real settlement pressure usually comes after a major expert ruling, a firm trial date, or an early bellwether verdict. Defendants do not usually pay fair value just because a docket is large. They pay when risk becomes immediate.

The federal bellwether trials are still expected in 2027, but state court trials may create pressure earlier. That is why the Illinois, Georgia, and Pennsylvania state court tracks matter so much.

October 2, 2025 – Salon Worker Cases Show Strong Exposure Facts

Some of the strongest hair relaxer cases involve professional stylists and cosmetologists. These women were not just occasional users. They worked with chemical straighteners regularly, often for years, in salon environments.

That exposure story is compelling. A consumer may have used relaxers every few months. A stylist may have applied them repeatedly, handled the products, inhaled fumes, and absorbed chemicals through the skin over the course of a working career.

That does not mean every stylist case is automatically strong. The medical injury, timing, product identification, and statute of limitations still matter. But as exposure cases go, salon worker claims may be among the cleaner ones.

September 11, 2025 – Judge Keeps Pressure on Deposition Progress

Judge Rowland continued pushing the MDL forward with deadline management and close monitoring of deposition progress.

That matters because large MDLs can drift if the court lets them. Discovery disputes, plaintiff fact sheets, product identification, and corporate documents can bog everything down. A judge who keeps asking for updates and holds parties to deadlines helps keep the litigation from turning into endless process.

For plaintiffs, keeping the schedule moving is important. The sooner the litigation gets to expert rulings and trial selection, the sooner defendants face real settlement pressure.

September 5, 2025 – Sally Beauty Insurance Fight Could Matter to Plaintiffs

Sally Beauty sued Cincinnati Insurance and Cincinnati Casualty in Texas federal court, alleging the insurers failed to fully pay defense costs in hair relaxer litigation.

This may seem like a side issue, but insurance coverage matters in mass torts. If defendants have insurance coverage available, there may be more money available for defense and settlement. If insurers refuse to pay, defendants may become more aggressive or more constrained.

Plaintiffs should watch these coverage fights. They are not the main lawsuit, but they can affect the practical settlement landscape.

August 3, 2025 – New Complaint Filed in Hair Relaxer MDL

In a new lawsuit filed today (a rare suit filed on a Sunday,  a woman from Virginia has joined the still-growing hair relaxer MDL, alleging that long-term use of chemical straighteners caused her to develop uterine cancer. Filed in the Northern District of Illinois, the complaint names Godrej SON Holdings, Inc., SoftSheen-Carson LLC, Strength of Nature, LLC, and L’Oréal USA Products, Inc. as defendants.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff began using hair relaxers in or around 1995 and continued until approximately 2014. The products identified include multiple formulations from the “Dark and Lovely” and “Just For Me” lines, which the plaintiff alleges were defectively designed and marketed without adequate warnings regarding their long-term health risks—especially hormonally driven cancers such as uterine and ovarian cancer.

The lawsuit adopts the factual allegations and legal claims set out in the MDL’s Master Long Form Complaint, including causes of action for negligence, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of warranties, and punitive damages. The plaintiff is also bringing claims for loss of consortium and wrongful death, reflecting the severity and potentially fatal consequences of the alleged injuries.

August 1, 2025 – Hair Relaxer MDL Case Count

As of August 1, 2025, the hair relaxer MDL includes 10,567 active cases before Judge Mary Rowland in the Northern District of Illinois. That represents an increase of 285 cases from the 10,282 pending on July 1, signaling a return to steady growth after the previous month’s decline.

Although the pace of new filings has slowed from earlier spikes, the litigation remains active and firmly in the discovery phase. This modest but consistent rise reflects continued interest in the docket, driven in part by growing public awareness, even as the television commercials fade away.

With Science Day set for January 2026 and no bellwether trials expected until 2027, this MDL is still in its early procedural stages. But the increase in cases is a reminder that for many women, the harms caused by these products are ongoing… and the demand for accountability is not fading.

July 27, 2025 – A Point Worth Remembering

As the hair relaxer MDL moves through discovery disputes and court-ordered deadlines, everyone should keep sight of what this litigation represents. For thousands of women, especially Black women who were targeted by decades of marketing, this case is not just a legal proceeding. It is a reckoning.

These women are not simply filing claims over failed products. They are standing up to corporations that saw them as a market and not as people. The fight is not about paperwork. It is about lives disrupted by cancer, hysterectomies, and the quiet grief of fertility lost too soon.

While defendants argue over scheduling and scope, the plaintiffs are focused on the truth. The sentiment driving these cases is clear. They were not warned. They were not protected. And now, they are demanding to be heard.

July 15, 2025 – Discovery Battles with Revlon

Judge Jantz has referred all outstanding discovery disputes between Plaintiffs and Revlon to Special Master Grossman.

Plaintiffs and Revlon are required to initiate contact with the Special Master no later than July 11, 2025. Judge Jantz made this referral to avoid delay and encourage more efficient resolution ahead of the July 24, 2025 status hearing.

While the judge acknowledged Plaintiffs’ concerns regarding the timing of this referral, she clarified that the move is not intended to give Revlon an opportunity to sidestep existing court orders. Those orders remain fully in effect. Judge Jantz emphasized that the Special Master is well-positioned to resolve the disputes currently on the table and to facilitate progress between the parties.

July 11, 2025 – Next Status Conference

The next status hearing is set for July 31, 2025, at 10:00 AM Central. Ahead of that, a joint status report on overall discovery progress is due by July 24. Plaintiffs and L’Oréal SA, as well as Plaintiffs and Revlon, must each file interim joint reports by July 8, 2025.

July 2, 2025 – Hair Relaxer MDL Case Count Holds at 10,282

The hair relaxer MDL before Judge Mary Rowland currently includes 10,282 pending cases, a slight decline from 10,317 last month. That drop follows a 149-case increase in May and may indicate that the surge in filings is starting to level off.

Our prediction was always 10,000 cases, and we will probably end up with a number pretty close to that. Still, we are taking new cases, and we are still getting strong compensable claims.

June 30, 2025 – New Hair Relaxer Lawsuit Filed in Illinois Federal Court

A new hair relaxer lawsuit was filed today in the Northern District of Illinois by a Nevada woman who used chemical hair straightening products from 1988 through 2023. The plaintiff alleges that long-term exposure to relaxers made by L’Oréal, Namaste Laboratories, and RNA Corporation caused her to develop uterine cancer.

The complaint outlines multiple causes of action, including negligence, defective design, and failure to warn, arguing that these products were aggressively marketed to women without proper safety disclosures. This filing adds to the growing number of personal injury claims pending in the MDL, which continues to focus on the connection between endocrine-disrupting chemicals in hair straighteners and hormone-driven cancers like uterine and ovarian cancer.

June 13, 2025 – Bellwether Case Dropped, Replacement Coming

In a recent development in the federal hair relaxer cancer litigation, one of the initial bellwether discovery cases—Hill v. L’Oréal USA—was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff. As a result, the defendants now have until July 1, 2025, to select a replacement case to take its place in the bellwether lineup.

The bellwether cases will be the first to go before a jury and will play a major role in determining how this litigation unfolds. The court has instructed both sides to work in good faith to ensure that fact discovery in the replacement case is completed before the final trial pool is locked in.

This substitution does not slow down the MDL. These things are expected to happen. With the first bellwether trial scheduled for November, every case selected matters. Each will help shape the pressure that could lead to a global settlement or a courtroom showdown we think we will win.

June 11, 2025 – What Would a Global Hair Relaxer Settlement Cost?

With over 10,000 plaintiffs now part of the multidistrict litigation involving chemical hair relaxers, settlement projections are no longer academic—they are essential. The cost to defendants will hinge entirely on the average payout per plaintiff. Below is a visual projection of total liability based on different potential per-claimant settlement values:

As this chart illustrates, even a $100,000 average per person settlement payout would translate to $1 billion in total liability. That number escalates quickly: $200,000 per plaintiff means $2 billion, and so on. At the high end, a $500,000 average settlement balloons the total to a staggering $5 billion.

This is just the MDL. It does not account for the state court lawsuits.

These are back-of-the-envelope projections, of course, but they’re grounded in the math. And they explain why both sides are sharpening their strategy as the litigation moves toward critical causation hearings and potential early trial verdicts.

L’Oréal could pay billions without breaking a sweat.  It will be an issue for some of the smaller companies in the litigation.

June 3, 2025 – Bellwether Discovery Underway

The 32 selected bellwether cases are now in the discovery phase. Both plaintiffs and defendants are exchanging evidence, including documents and testimonies, to prepare for the upcoming trials. This process is crucial in shaping the direction of the litigation and potential settlement discussions.

June 2, 2025 – MDL Case Count Update

The Hair Relaxer MDL has grown to 10,317 pending cases, reflecting a steady increase as more individuals come forward. The consistent rise in filings underscores the widespread impact and ongoing concerns related to chemical hair relaxer products.

May 23, 2025 – Joint Status Report Filed

Attorneys submitted a joint status report detailing the progress of discovery in the MDL. The report outlines the current state of evidence exchange and highlights any ongoing disputes or challenges faced during the process.

May 14, 2025 – Bellwether Case Selection Finalized

The selection process for bellwether cases has been completed, with 32 cases chosen to proceed. These cases will serve as representative trials to gauge potential outcomes and inform future proceedings within the MDL.

May 7, 2025 – L’Oréal S.A. Dismissed from MDL

The court has dismissed L’Oréal S.A., the French parent company of L’Oréal USA, from the MDL due to jurisdictional reasons. However, L’Oréal USA remains a defendant, and the core claims against the company continue to move forward.

May 2, 2025 – Case Count Update

The hair relaxer cancer lawsuits continued to advance last month with 149 new cases added to the MDL, bringing the total to 10,317. That kind of steady growth tells you the litigation is far from leveling off.  Because women continue to be newly diagnosed with cancer.

Plaintiffs’ lawyers believe the bump reflects both growing public awareness and strategic filings ahead of upcoming discovery deadlines. With bellwether trials scheduled to begin this fall, the window for adding new cases to the docket before trial pressure intensifies is closing quickly.

At the same time, this surge shows that the MDL is entering a new phase. General causation expert reports are taking shape. Procedural fights are intensifying. And more women are recognizing the link between years of chemical straightener use and diagnoses like uterine or ovarian cancer.

If a global settlement is going to happen, it will likely take shape before the first jury trial in November. If not, both sides will head into court, and the jury will weigh in on whether these companies should be held accountable for decades of marketing products without adequate warnings.