Hair Straightener Uterine Cancer Lawsuit (April 2025 Update)

Growing Number of Hair Stylist Claims

Beyond individual consumers, a growing portion of recent filings involves hair stylists and cosmetologists who frequently worked with chemical relaxers in salons. Unlike occasional personal users, these professionals experienced daily exposure through direct contact and inhalation, often over decades.

Because of their consistent, high-level exposure, their cases provide strong evidence linking hair straightener chemicals to hormone-related cancers such as uterine, ovarian, and breast cancer. Attorneys representing these plaintiffs emphasize the significant financial and career impact of these diagnoses—many stylists have been forced to abandon their professions due to severe health complications.

Given the severity of their injuries and the depth of exposure, these stylist claims are expected to play a key role in shaping the course of the litigation.

Medical Research and Expanding Health Concerns

Recent studies continue to raise concerns about the safety of chemical hair relaxers. While uterine and ovarian cancer remain the primary focus, new research suggests potential links to breast cancer and respiratory damage. These findings further emphasize the need for consumer awareness regarding the long-term health risks associated with these products.

Additionally, synthetic hair products used for braiding have come under scrutiny. Emerging research has identified carcinogenic chemicals, including lead, in some synthetic hair materials. This discovery presents new health concerns for individuals who frequently use these products.

Ongoing Legal and Health Developments

Hair relaxer litigation is evolving rapidly, with new legal actions, medical studies, and regulatory considerations shaping the landscape. As the MDL progresses and scientific research continues to emerge, individuals affected by these products should stay informed and seek legal and medical guidance as needed.

The legal proceedings concerning chemical hair relaxers and their alleged association with uterine cancer have recently advanced notably. The multidistrict litigation (MDL) in the Northern District of Illinois now encompasses 9,819 active cases, with 170 new lawsuits filed. U.S. District Judge Mary Rowland has set firm deadlines for the discovery phase: written discovery must be completed by February 28, 2025, and oral fact discovery by September 30, 2025. These schedules are crucial for the timely progression of the litigation.

As of January 2025, chemical hair relaxer lawsuits have experienced substantial growth and legal advancements. The multidistrict litigation (MDL) has expanded to 9,649 active cases, with 161 new lawsuits added recently. This increase reflects mounting concerns over the safety of these products and their alleged links to severe health conditions.

U.S. District Judge Mary Rowland, overseeing the litigation, has implemented clear timelines for the discovery phase. Written discovery is set to conclude by February 28, 2025, while oral fact discovery must be completed by September 30, 2025. These deadlines mark critical steps in advancing the litigation process. In addition, Judge Rowland has allowed a proposed class action to proceed against major manufacturers, including L’Oréal USA and Revlon. The class action seeks economic damages and funding for medical monitoring, arguing that these companies failed to adequately warn consumers about potential health risks associated with their products.

Scientific studies have linked chemicals in hair relaxers to an increased risk of uterine and ovarian cancers, further fueling the wave of lawsuits. Plaintiffs claim manufacturers neglected to disclose these dangers, leaving consumers unaware of the potential harm. With these findings gaining attention, legal professionals encourage individuals who have used hair relaxers and later developed related health issues to pursue claims. Many law firms are currently accepting cases and offering guidance for affected consumers.

These developments illustrate the evolving landscape of hair relaxer lawsuits as growing case numbers, legal motions, and emerging research continue to shape the litigation’s direction. As proceedings progress, regulatory and public scrutiny remain focused on holding manufacturers accountable for the alleged risks posed by these widely used products.

As of November 2024, hair relaxer litigation continues to grow, with nearly 9,500 cases filed in federal and 300 in state courts across Illinois, Georgia, New York, Pennsylvania, and Delaware. Most federal cases are consolidated in an MDL in the Northern District of Illinois, overseen by Judge Mary Rowland. A notable recent filing involves a Georgia woman alleging that her mother’s prolonged use of hair relaxers caused uterine cancer, ultimately leading to her death. Defendants, including L’Oréal USA, Inc. and SoftSheen-Carson LLC, are accused of failing to warn consumers of these risks.

The litigation remains in a pivotal discovery phase. Plaintiffs have moved to compel Strength of Nature (SON) to release critical documents related to a “uterine study” after the company failed to produce them as agreed. Settlement estimates suggest potential payouts between $100,000 and $1,500,000 per person based on precedents in similar product liability cases. These developments underscore the challenges facing manufacturers and plaintiffs as the litigation unfolds.

The NAACP has joined the fight against hair relaxer manufacturers, supporting lawsuits in Georgia, California, and Illinois. The organization has partnered with the California law firm Singleton Schreiber, adding legal and communication resources to cases that claim hair relaxer products caused cancer and reproductive issues, disproportionately affecting Black women. A study found that regular users of hair straightening products were almost twice as likely to develop uterine cancer, impacting Black women more due to higher product usage.

Attorney Danielle Ward Mason, now working with Singleton Schreiber, is collaborating with the American Association for Justice to advocate for stricter federal regulations on cosmetics. This push aligns with recent calls by U.S. Representative Ayanna Pressley for the FDA to investigate and regulate harmful chemicals in hair products. The NAACP’s involvement amplifies the litigation and advocacy, aiming to protect Black women from harmful beauty products and push for broader legislative and regulatory changes.

The ongoing multidistrict litigation (MDL) for hair relaxer lawsuits continues to develop. As of November 2024, around 8,393 cases remain active in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, while over 10,000 cases have been filed. The primary claims involve allegations that chemical hair relaxers and straighteners caused various types of cancer, especially uterine and endometrial cancers. The cases are primarily directed at significant beauty brands like L’Oréal, SoftSheen-Carson, and Strength of Nature.

The next court proceeding in the Hair Relaxer MDL 3060, set for October 10, 2024, will likely focus on critical litigation developments. This multidistrict litigation combines thousands of claims from plaintiffs who assert that specific hair relaxer products have caused serious health conditions, including uterine cancer.

The upcoming hearing may address several key issues, including disputes over the Plaintiff Fact Sheets (PFS), motions related to incomplete submissions, and ongoing discovery challenges. The court may also discuss defendants’ disclosure obligations and the progression of bellwether trials, which are pivotal in guiding the outcomes of the consolidated cases.

Contention around discovery has been a significant aspect of this case, with plaintiffs alleging delays by defendants seeking additional information post-submission. A special master has been appointed to manage electronic discovery, which could be a central focus during this hearing. Bookmark this page for continued updates on Hair Relaxer Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation.

The Northern District of Illinois issued an order on August 22, 2024, in the case of In re Hair Relaxer Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation. The order responds to a motion by the Plaintiffs’ Co-Lead Counsel (PLC) seeking to create guidelines for managing common benefit fees and expenses in this large multidistrict litigation (MDL 3060). Numerous lawsuits claim that certain hair relaxer products have caused cancer and other serious health issues.

1. MDL Background: The litigation was consolidated to streamline the handling of thousands of lawsuits, ensuring consistent rulings and minimizing duplicative efforts. The plaintiffs contend that using hair relaxer products led to significant health problems, with over 8,400 cases now included in this MDL.
2. PLC’s Motion: The PLC proposed establishing a common benefit fund to cover fees and expenses incurred from work benefiting all plaintiffs in the MDL. The proposed fund would be supported by withholding a percentage from any settlements or judgments in related cases.
3. Keller Postman LLC’s Objection: Representing individual plaintiffs, Keller Postman LLC opposed the motion, particularly challenging the proposed 11% holdback (8% for legal fees and 3% for expenses), arguing it was too high and premature.
4. Court’s Ruling: The court partially granted the PLC’s motion but limited the scope of the assessments. It acknowledged the necessity of a common benefit fund but ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to impose assessments on cases not directly before the court, such as those in state courts or those settled before filing in any court.
5. Legal Reasoning: The court examined its authority, discussing the common benefit doctrine, its inherent powers to manage the MDL, and contract law. It concluded that its jurisdiction is confined to the cases within the MDL and cannot extend to outside cases or settlements.
6. Assessment Validation: The court deemed the 11% assessment reasonable, considering the complex nature of the litigation and the extensive work involved. However, it noted that if the assessments later proved excessive, they could be adjusted or refunded.

The court’s decision allowed the PLC to establish a common benefit fund but restricted the application of assessments to cases within the MDL’s jurisdiction. The PLC was instructed to revise their proposed order in accordance with the court’s limitations.

As of today, the hair relaxer multidistrict litigation has consolidated 8,192 cases filed by consumers who used certain hair straightening products and have been diagnosed with serious medical conditions, including various cancers. Some of the defendant product manufacturers have filed motions to dismiss, and plaintiffs are alleging that the defendants are not providing sufficient information as requested.

The discovery phase, where both sides must disclose relevant information to help move these cases toward trial, is moving slowly. Electronic discovery is especially important, and a Special Master has been appointed to oversee this portion of the MDL. The next court conference is scheduled for August 29, 2024. We’ll keep you posted about how the litigation is proceeding.

With cases being consolidated, the Hair Relaxer MDL saw the slightest of increases in the last month, rising from 8,170 in June to 8,333 in the latest count. Efforts are being made to consolidate additional cases to streamline the legal process and ensure consistent rulings.

A prior Case Management Order requires all plaintiffs in this MDL to complete a Plaintiff Fact Sheet (PFS). With the PFS information, the defendants can respond more quickly to each lawsuit. If a PFS is incomplete, the defendants must send a PFS Warning Letter to the plaintiff, who has 30 days to provide the missing details on their PFS.

Defendants now claim 65 plaintiffs have submitted completely blank Fact Sheets, while others have provided incomplete information.

Under court order, the defendants have a valid argument if some plaintiffs try to join the MDL by filing a blank PFS to stall for more time. This is not a game we play at Dolman Law Group, and we expect the non-complying law firms to follow the MDL rules like the rest of us.

Meanwhile, some plaintiffs report that even after providing additional PFS information, they received an additional Warning Letter, including new requests. These procedural maneuvers may be an attempt to influence which cases may be chosen for bellwether trials in the future.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) was asked to propose a ban on formaldehyde in hair straightening products due to its previously established link to cancer. The deadline for this ban passed, and the FDA took no action and didn’t explain why.

At Dolman Law Group, we are disappointed at this lack of action since formaldehyde is an ingredient in many products and can potentially harm many consumer groups, especially Black women who tend to use hair relaxer products the most.

Although the Defense counsel objected to Maura Grossman (see the May 1st entry below), Professor Grossman has been named the ESI Special Master in this Multidistrict Litigation.

Professor Grossman is currently on the faculty at Waterloo University and holds several degrees, including a Law degree, a Ph.D., an M.A., and a Bachelor’s degree from Brown University. Ms. Groosman will help address and resolve all complex electronic discovery matters in these cases.

The plaintiffs have suggested Professor Maura Grossman as a special master for this MDL. However, Professor Grossman recently advised the defendants on a different litigation matter.

Defendants claim she ended that work quickly so she could be appointed as a special master in these cases. Defendants also dispute the professor’s loyalty due to her prior associations and argue potential conflicts of interest should disqualify her.

It seems safe to assume that the professor’s opinions in the other case were unfavorable to the defendants, so they are trying to exclude her from this litigation. In her place, the defendants suggested that the court appoint Judge Paul Grimm as special master. Judge Grimm appears to be a good option if the court agrees with the defendants.

In April, 81 new cases joined this MDL, so there are now 8,468 pending personal injury claims related to hair relaxers. If you are considering a hair relaxer lawsuit, talk to the product liability lawyers at Dolman Law Group to learn more.

As new lawsuit filings slow, another group of Plaintiff Fact Sheets is expected next week. In the past 30 days, only 53 new cases joined the MDL, bringing the total number of hair relaxer lawsuits to 8,387.

Meanwhile, some plaintiffs have asked to voluntarily dismiss or amend their complaints for various reasons before the defendants answer. The hair straightener manufacturer defendants object by claiming these dismissals violate MDL rules.

The team at Dolman Law Group believes any plaintiff should have the right to dismiss their claim, especially if they are too ill from cancer or their cancer treatment to continue fighting.

After much discussion, a Special Master was appointed last month to handle complex litigation issues. Following disputes about several potential candidates, the court named retired judge Paul Grimm.

The defendants have requested a monthly fee cap of $10,000 based on Judge Grimm’s involvement. At his regular hourly rate, Judge Grimm could only devote approximately 13 hours each month to this MDL. Lawyers for the plaintiffs do not agree to any fee restrictions.

With the addition of only 117 new cases in February, the total number of hair straightener lawsuits in the MDL has risen to 8,334. If these products have harmed you, reach out today to learn more about your legal rights.

Plaintiffs’ cases are sorted by the type of cancer suffered by the hair relaxer product users. The top three types of cancer (those that should be the easiest to prove) are uterine cancer, ovarian cancer, and endometrial cancer. If you have suffered one of these cancers after using hair straightener products, your case is considered one of the strongest.

With the addition of 191 new cases in January, the total number of hair relaxer lawsuits in the MDL is now 8,217. The influx of new cases had fallen and plateaued since last summer, when thousands of new case filings were seen in several months.

Between December 2023 and January 2024, the monthly average number of hair relaxer filings has steadily diminished, potentially representing a plateau in enrollment. Nevertheless, eligible claimants are still permitted to seek entry to the legal proceedings with the assistance of qualified uterine cancer hair relaxer lawyers.

Over 8,100 users of carcinogenic hair straighteners have sought enrollment in the extensive hair relaxer MDL, which we expect to expand considerably in the future. The majority of the cases are still pending while Judge Mary Rowland and the parties establish a protocol for conducting discovery. The trajectory of the litigation, while turbulent, has been remarkable, with consistent increases in filings since the initial establishment of the MDL in February 2023.

In November 2023, Judge Mary Rowland dismissed Dermovia Skin Essentials, Incorporated and Dubar International Limited from the litigation, citing the court’s lack of jurisdiction over international offenders. However, in a recent ruling, Judge Rowland granted the prosecution’s request to extend discovery into current defendants’ international sale of hair care products. The development represents the court’s role in influencing the nature, speed, and scope of the parties’ fact-finding.

A new study links the use of chemical hair relaxers and uterine cancer. In what has been titled the Black Women’s Health Study, 45,000 black women who self-reported regular use of chemical hair relaxers displayed a significant increase in the reporting of a uterine cancer diagnosis.  The authors of this study concluded that exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals leads to an increase in reproductive cancer among women. 

The number of plaintiffs participating in the chemical hair relaxer MDL has increased consistently in the final quarter of 2023. Currently, nearly 8,000 users of potentially carcinogenic chemical hair straighteners have enrolled in the multidistrict litigation, which is slated to expedite the discovery process in early 2024. 

Earlier this month, the court-appointed Leadership Development Committee (LDC) submitted a request to the court for the establishment of a common benefit fund. The funds will serve to compensate attorneys participating in the LDC for the services rendered on behalf of the plaintiffs. The court filing requests an 11% rate from the fund, which is steep in comparison to recent mass torts and multidistrict litigation. 

Defendants such as L’Oreal and Revlon argued that the plaintiff’s state law claims are preempted by federal law.  Their motion to dismiss was denied by Judge Rowland who ruled plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of proof on preemption.  Thus, the plaintiff’s claims for failure to warn and general negligence have survived and will proceed forward.  

Judge Rowland further ruled that the plaintiffs failed to meet the burden for rule 9(b) fraud-based claims, which is not a huge deal. The plaintiff’s claim for unfair conduct under Rule 8(a) was met. The Judge also ruled the plaintiff’s demand for punitive damages would survive as the defendant’s motion to dismiss this claim was denied.

Judge Rowland ordered a new deadline of November 23, 2023, to respond to discovery production and overruled defendants’ standing objections.  

Judge Rowland has set forth the rules and procedures for utilizing a short-form complaint in the hair relaxer MDL.  This will allow plaintiffs to streamline lawsuits into the MDL.  

As of last evening, there are now over 2000 chemical hair relaxer lawsuits that have been filed into the MDL alleging that exposure to these endocrine receptor chemicals has resulted in uterine cancer. This is a fast-growing mass tort with more money devoted to television advertising each month.  

A status conference was held this week wherein a number of issues were addressed. First Judge Rowland has set a deadline for August 30, 2023, for both parties to file a joint status report on defendant McBride’s recently filed motion to dismiss. Another issue addressed is bankruptcy issues concerning Revlon who is a principal defendant.   A bankruptcy lawyer addressed Judge Rowland. 

A new master complaint has been filed into the MDL.  This will enable plaintiffs to expeditiously file hair relaxer cancer lawsuits directly into the MDL going forward.  The master complaint is nearly 400 pages and provides a comprehensive breakdown of what the plaintiffs are alleging in these cases.  

There are now over 400 lawsuits that are part of the chemical hair straightener MDL.  Television advertising continues to grow. This is one of the fastest-growing mass torts as advertisements continue educating consumers about the potential risks of medical conditions related to hair care products. 

The defendants are requesting a division of pre-trial discovery issues. They want all efforts at this point focused on general causation issues and whether there is sufficient evidence to link hair relaxers to uterine cancer and other serious conditions. All other discovery issues would be delayed until the causation issue is fully investigated.

The plaintiffs oppose this tactic because it will only delay the case, potentially for years. Instead, plaintiffs want to push for a trial date to put pressure on the defendants to make a reasonable settlement offer rather than face a potential multi-million dollar verdict. We expect the court will deny the defendants’ motion and help move the cases along as quickly as possible.

As of June 16th, there were 149 pending hair relaxer cancer cases in this multi-district litigation, with 25 new cases filed in the 30 days since mid-May.

The court set today’s deadline for both sides to file a brief explaining whether hair straightening or relaxing products can cause the many illnesses and injuries alleged. As further support for the MDL, a recent study released by the Boston University School of Public Health has linked the use of hair-relaxing products to a lower fertility rate.

Like other research that found harmful endocrine-disrupting chemicals in these products, this recent study published in the American Journal of Epidemiology found a racial impact. The authors determined that women of color (black, Hispanic, and multi-racial) have a greater likelihood of fertility problems because they use hair straighteners more frequently and for longer periods of time, starting at a younger age.

Considering the Sister Study discussed on this page and the most recent Boston U. report, it will be interesting to see how the defendants try to invalidate the scientific proof linking these hair products to various illnesses, and uterine cancer in particular.

During May, the parties addressed procedures to help move the MDL along. Handling such a large volume of relevant documents, many of which may be confidential or privileged, will require certain management and disclosure processes. Two points of contention remain: how to handle electronically stored documents and overall confidentiality issues.

A Master Complaint has been created to help plaintiffs enter the MDL using a comprehensive form that includes shared allegations among all potential claimants. One of the main allegations in this litigation relates to ongoing harm experienced by users of hair-relaxing products that contained endocrine-disrupting chemicals. In addition to the Master Complaint, each plaintiff must prepare and file a Short-Form Complaint that sets forth the specific details, allegations, and damages unique to their claim.

As of March 15, 2023, the MDL contained 124 pending cases. More than 100 cases were added in the past three months alone.

Until recently, people who wanted to bring legal action against L’Oréal were required to file a hair relaxer class action lawsuit in their local federal court and request a transfer to the national multidistrict litigation (MDL) located in the Northern District of Illinois. Judge Mary Rowland, who is in charge of the MDL, has made it easier to participate in the MDL by allowing direct filings using a short-form complaint.

Earlier this month, the MDL contained more than 100 cases, but with this recent ruling, we expect the addition of hundreds of cases every month through this summer.

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) issued an order consolidating all existing lawsuits filed in federal courts throughout the U.S. into a new hair relaxer MDL (Multidistrict litigation) with venue in the Northern District of Illinois under Judge Mary Rowland. Although the MDL started with only 60 cases, we anticipate at least 100 plus hair relaxer lawsuits will be added to the MDL each and every month going forward. This has the potential to develop into a massive lawsuit in the coming months.

Judge Rowland will be tasked with managing the various parties, their pre-trial coordination, and, potentially, bellwether trials in the future.

The creation of the MDL faced opposition from defendants who argued that an MDL was not suitable since the hair straightener lawsuit names several competing hair relaxer manufacturers, and plaintiffs used various brands throughout their lives. They also pointed out that no clear chemical culprit has been named as the one responsible for the injuries suffered by the plaintiffs.

Despite this, the MDL was created in the interest of efficiency when handling not just the existing hair relaxer lawsuits but the vast number of claims that are expected to be filed in the future.

Arguments for and against a hair relaxer MDL were heard by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation today in Miami. Plaintiffs argued that chemicals found in products such as Dark & Lovely, Just for Me, Motions, Olive Oil Relaxer, Organic Root Stimulator, and others caused them to develop cancer of the uterus or ovaries as well as uterine fibroids resulting in a hysterectomy.

Further, the plaintiffs contend these hair relaxer products were specifically marketed to African-American women. Plaintiffs have requested a consolidation of all federal lawsuits in the United States Federal Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

L’Oréal argues that all lawsuits should not be consolidated as they cover numerous defendants and products. The defendants would prefer to defend lawsuits filed in federal courts throughout the country. In the alternative, they have requested a consolidation of all hair relaxer lawsuits in the Southern District of New York (SDNY).

Multiple defendants have now filed motions opposing the transfer of venue and the creation of a national chemical hair relaxer uterine cancer MDL. Over the last ten days, responses from L’Oréal, Strength of Nature, Dabur, and House of Cheatham, have been filed with the Joint Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.

L’Oréal and the above-named companies opposed the centralization of these lawsuits and alleged the vast number of defendants and diseases make consolidation an inefficient solution. In fact, they would prefer the lawsuits continue on their current tracks throughout the nation. Further, they also oppose the Northern District of Illinois as a venue, and L’Oréal, for one, would prefer the venue to be the Southern District of New York should an MDL be created for the hair relaxer class action lawsuit.

The Joint Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) entertained oral arguments on whether all pending hair straightener uterine cancer lawsuits should be consolidated into a new MDL. A group of plaintiffs has argued that the common questions of fact and law contained in these lawsuits spread throughout Federal jurisdictions should be consolidated in order to streamline discovery and set bellwether trials in the near future.

MDLs are created to avoid redundancy in discovery across potentially thousands of cases. Further, an MDL prevents a situation where pre-trial rulings conflict with one another, and common witnesses would be trekking all over the nation to appear in various lawsuits.

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) has scheduled a hearing for January 26, 2023, in Miami, to determine whether all pending hair relaxer lawsuits filed in federal courts throughout the U.S. should be consolidated into one jurisdiction. Defendants oppose the motion to consolidate all lawsuits into an MDL (Multidistrict Litigation) due to the numerous defendants and products involved. 

We believe the JPML will rule in favor of consolidating all lawsuits. Many recent mass tort lawsuits, including the Tylenol autism lawsuit, have been consolidated into an MDL despite various defendants and products involved in the underlying actions. 

A number of plaintiffs came together and filed a motion with the Joint Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) to transfer actions and establish a national hair straightener uterine cancer MDL (Multidistrict litigation). The plaintiffs seek to consolidate all chemical hair relaxer lawsuits that are currently pending in Federal Courts throughout the United States and have them brought into a single jurisdiction before one Judge.

In their memorandum of law, the plaintiffs requested that all hair straightener lawsuits be consolidated in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois *Chicago). We anticipate the defendants (the largest being L’Oreal) will oppose this motion for consolidation due to the number of defendants and products involved. Further, we expect defendants to propose alternative jurisdictions to the Northern District of Illinois. 

A class action lawsuit was filed on November 3, 2022, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.  The lawsuit seeks class-action status for the named plaintiffs and all individuals similarly situated and names L’Oreal USA, Inc., L’Oreal USA Products, Inc., and Softsheen Carson, Inc., as defendants.  Each woman plaintiff claims they purchased a chemical hair relaxer product containing endocrine disrupting chemicals, but they would have never purchased the product if they had been warned it contained potentially toxic chemicals.  

What makes this class action lawsuit unique is that all plaintiffs expressly admit they have not been diagnosed with any injury related to the hair products.  However, they request that L’Oréal pay for medical monitoring going forward, including testing and preventative screening. 

In essence, the plaintiffs contend their regular exposure to toxic chemicals makes them susceptible to uterine cancer, ovarian cancer, and uterine fibroids. Testing and preventative screening are essential as early detection of hormone-based cancers can potentially save lives or greatly reduce medical expenses incurred in the treatment of such. 

We are curious if a trend will develop in hair relaxer litigation, where other law firms begin pursuing medical monitoring claims due to a failure to warn of dangers related to hair products. 

Famous civil rights attorney Ben Crump has filed a lawsuit on behalf of Jenny Mitchell against L’Oreal, alleging that Ms. Mitchell’s regular use of their brand, Dark & Lovely, resulted in the development of uterine cancer.  The lawsuit followed on the heels of a new study published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, which found women who regularly used chemical hair relaxers (defined as at least four times a year) were more than 2.5 times likely to develop uterine cancer. Hair care products are now being linked to uterine cancer and other reproductive cancers.