WeeklySA_AdminREPRODUCTIVE: Black women in the United States claim damages after suffering health complications, including cancer, apparently from long-term use of hair relaxers…
By Monk Nkomo
A fierce legal battle is looming nationwide especially in several states in the USA relating to lawsuits estimated at millions of rand brought against world-renowned cosmetic companies by more than 12 000 women – mostly Black – who had been diagnosed with reproductive cancers apparently from long-term use of their chemical hair relaxer products.
One of the multi-million rand legal actions have been filed by lawyers from Lawsuit Information Center (LIC). Some of the strongest chemical hair relaxer cases these lawyers were pursuing were those filed by hair stylists and salon professionals who had allegedly suffered significant financial losses tied to their exposure.
According to the lawsuits, these cosmetic companies sold hair relaxers allegedly containing chemicals that increased the risk of developing various types of cancers including uterine cancer. These companies had allegedly failed to warn customers about these risks. These hair straighteners were also allegedly overwhelmingly marketed to Black women.
According to the LIC, the number of pending actions in the hair relaxer Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) had increased slightly in May this year from 10, 168 to 10, 317.
The lawyers were particularly focused on cases involving uterine cancer, endometrial cancer, ovarian cancer and uterine fibroids and hysterectomy due to fibroids. They are also concentrating their efforts on the following products : Dark and Lovely; Ultra Sheen etc ( L’Oreal, the most prominent defendant and a company that is worth 225 billion US dollars); ORS Olive oil hair relaxer ( Namaste, LLC); Just for me ( TCB Naturals/ Godrej Consumer products); Motions (Strength of Nature Global, LLC) and Revlon.
Lawyers were also reviewing chemical hair straightener lawsuits involving Optimum Salon and other hair perms and hair straightener products.
Many of the hair stylists and salon professionals were women who had built their entire careers around hairstyling only to be diagnosed with cancer or reproductive disorder that made working impossible. Their exposure levels were significantly higher, making the link between hair relaxers and hormones – driven cancers including uterine, breast and ovarian cancers, even stronger in these cases.
“Unlike consumers who can simply stop using relaxers, these professionals cannot return to work in their industry , making their claims for economic damages much stronger’’, the LIC said. From a litigation perspective, this high-frequency exposure was a critical factor that strengthened causation arguments , making these claims some of the most compelling in the MDL, lawyers said.
‘’ Our lawyers are seeing cases where former stylists have lost their entire livelihoods, suffered through hysterectomies, aggressive cancer treatments and permanent health complications- all because manufacturers failed to warn them of the risks associated with the daily exposure to these toxic chemicals.’’
A group of 32 cases had been chosen to help shape the first trials which are expected to begin sometime in 2027. So far, no settlement had been reached in the hair relaxer lawsuits and the bellwether trials had not yet begun. A mediator had been appointed to help facilitate negotiations towards a potential settlement.
The plaintiffs’ lawyers in the hair relaxer MDL were also pushing forward in their fight to hold beauty companies accountable for the alleged hidden health risks of chemical hair straighteners. Over 12 000 women – many of them Black – had filed lawsuits alleging that the products caused uterine and ovarian cancer.
A woman from Newellton, Louisiana, joined the multidistrict litigation over injuries allegedly caused by chemical hair relaxer products in a new lawsuit filed last week. The plaintiff claims that she used various hair relaxers manufactured and marketed by Godrej Son Holdings, Luster Products, Namaste Laboratories and Strength of Nature from approximately 1990 until 2019.
According to the complaint, the plaintiff developed ovarian cancer and had suffered significant physical pain, emotional distress and economic losses. The lawsuit alleges negligence, design defects and failure to warn , among other claims. The plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages and has also requested a jury trial.
‘’ She attributed her condition to long-term use of products such as the PCJ No Lye and ORS Olive oil relaxers as well as several Motions and Just For Me – branded products manufactured by the defendant,’’ lawyers representing the complainant said. Another woman, from Michigan, also filed a complaint alleging seven years of using chemical hair straighteners had caused her to develop ovarian cancer.
‘’ Our hair relaxer lawsuit lawyers are actively representing victims nationwide. Our legal team is dedicated to securing the highest possible compensation for women harmed by chemical hair straighteners’’, the LIC said.
The hair relaxer companies’ responses to these lawsuits have generally been denials of wrongdoing and instead asserting product safety and challenging the scientific basis of these legal actions. They often highlighted the extensive testing and regulatory compliance of their products stating that their products were not linked to the health problems alleged in the lawsuits.
In an order issued on May 8, Judge Mary Rowland of Philadelphia, dismissed an application by L’Oreal SA, the French parent of L’Oreal USA from the hair relaxer MDL, that the court lacked personal jurisdiction.
The Judge also requested a detailed list of completed, scheduled and unscheduled depositions. The court is expected to select 12 cases for potential bellwether trials, narrowing them down to ten by March 18, 2026. The first bellwether trial is scheduled for November 3, 2025 with a second trial set for February 2, 2026. The summary judgment is expected by November 16, 2026.
The court had also appointed Ellen K. Reisman as a Special Master to oversee and coordinate settlement negotiations in this litigation. This did not mean that settlement talks would succeed. This was just a routine measure used to help manage complex litigation efficiently, particularly when there were multiple parties involved.
RESPONSES BY HAIR RELAXER COMPANIES
The responses to the lawsuits generally involved denial of wrongdoing with the companies asserting product safety and challenging the scientific basis of the legal action. The companies often highlighted the extensive testing and regulatory compliance of their products, stressing that their products were not linked to the health problems alleged in the lawsuits.
• REVLON dismissed the lawsuits against their company stating that they did not believe science supported a link between chemical hair straighteners or relaxers and cancer.
• L’OREAL expressed confidence in the safety of their products stating that the allegations in the lawsuits lacked legal and scientific merit. The company emphasized the extensive scientific evaluations and rigorous testing of their products to ensure their safety and compliance with regulations in various markets.
• NAMASTE : Regarding ORS Olive oil relaxers, their lawyer said the company did not believe the lawsuits had established or would be able to establish a causal link between their products and the alleged injuries. The company highlighted that all ingredients in its ORS Olive oil were approved for cosmetic use by USA regulators.
• Many other companies had declined to comment or had not responded to requests for comment but generally maintained a similar position of denying wrongdoing and believing in product safety.
