Hair Relaxer Cancer Lawsuit Lawyer

The hair relaxer MDL established an assessment of 11 percent regarding gross monetary recoveries in order to compensate lawyers who work on behalf of plaintiffs. The intent is to reward lawyers for significant effort regarding the advancement of litigation, including retaining experts, managing discovery, coordinating case strategy and bellwether trial preparation. The intent is also to reimburse costs such as document storage costs, expert analysis costs and deposition fees.

For plaintiffs involved in the litigation, what this means is that part of their judgment or settlement will be directed towards the funding of work performed by lawyers for the common benefit of all plaintiffs. However, this will likely come out of the fee your lawyer charges, not out of your settlement or judgment.

In other news, 161 cases were added to the hair relaxer MDL in November, bringing the total number of cases to 9,649.

Attorneys continue to debate plans regarding a small set of bellwether trials in the hair relaxer MDL for discovery which is case-specific. While this occurs, the judge overseeing the MDL has given parties a deadline of late 2025 in order to finish general fact discovery. This suggests that the initial trials won't see juries until the year 2026 or later.

Around 8,400 lawsuits are pending in federal court, alleging that manufacturers of chemical hair relaxing and straightening products like Just for Me and Dark & Lovely didn't warn women regarding the risk that these products may cause ovarian cancer, endometrial cancer, uterine cancer or additional injuries.

A document issued by the judge on October 11 directed parties to finish written discovery by February 2025, with completion of oral fact discovery to be completed by September 2025.

Defendants were given until November 2024 by the judge to answer a class action complaint regarding hair relaxers. This complaint is a combination of numerous, nearly identical class action lawsuits which have been filed by plaintiffs who didn't suffer physical injuries but seek medical monitoring expenses and refunds.

The judge presiding over the hair relaxer MDL rejected a motion to dismiss class action lawsuits which are being pursued against cosmetics companies.

Early February saw defendants file a motion to dismiss the class action lawsuits. That motion argued that federal law preempts economic harm claims, and that the plaintiffs failed to alleged sufficient injury claims in order to pursue class action status. The judge rejected these arguments.

Cosmetics manufacturers are also facing over 8,400 individual lawsuits in addition to the class action lawsuits. The individual lawsuits allege that women developed injuries including uterine cancer and ovarian cancer after using chemical hair straightening and relaxing products. The lawsuits allege that the manufacturers knew these products could cause cancer but failed to warn about this risk.

In other news, 200 cases were added to the hair straightener MDL in September, which now involves 8,393 pending cases.

August saw over 200 cases added to the hair straightener MDL. This was the most cases added to the MDL in a month for many months. This brought the total number of pending cases to 8,489.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs in the hair relaxer MDL are frustrated with the compliance of Revlon regarding pretrial discovery. They have filed a motion to force the company to meet obligations.

The lawyers have expressed concerns about the company's failure to respond adequately to interrogatories and document requests. Lawyers for Revlon explained they had to review about 900,000 pages in order to provide complete responses. The court ordered the company to start producing responses in a rolling fashion and to complete production by August 9.

This didn't occur. While the company has provided interrogatory responses and produced around 900 documents totaling about 6,000 pages, they failed to give a clear timeline regarding completion of the production. Discovery has been significantly hampered by this delay.

Because of these delays, plaintiffs' lawyers are asking the court to order the company to complete production and review of the 900,000 document pages by September 15, or a date which the court deems appropriate. The plaintiffs are also asking Revlon's lawyers to certify that production of documents is substantially completed by September 15. It is also suggested by the plaintiffs that if the company fails to do these things, sanctions should be considered by the court, such as denying claims of privilege or objections by Revlon regarding the documents.

Lawyers representing women, who number in the thousands, who are pursuing hair straightener lawsuits regarding the development of cancers and additional injuries, have told the judge overseeing the hair relaxer MDL that CVS or Walgreens will not be included on the master complaint.

The lawyers noted that CVS and Walgreens have only been named in a single hair straightener lawsuit each.

Should any people wish to include a claim against CVS or Walgreens in a hair relaxer lawsuit, the attorneys suggested the companies could be manually included as defendants on short form complaints.

On the same date, it is indicated by a docket entry that the plaintiffs and defendants are at an impasse regarding a proposal to dismiss hair straightener lawsuits which involve injuries other than endometrial, uterine or ovarian cancer, which lawyers for the plaintiffs in the MDL indicated previously won't be supported by the current litigation.

In June of last year, Revlon filed for bankruptcy, leading to a rush of lawsuits getting filed by those who suspected they had ovarian, endometrial or uterine cancer, so they could submit cases before their ability to sue was blocked by bankruptcy protections. Later on, many women discovered they weren't diagnosed with these cancer types, which are now the focus of the hair straightener MDL.

The parties have been discussing an agreement which would allow voluntary dismissal of the claims without prejudice, meaning the women would be able to refile claims later on if they're diagnosed with ovarian, endometrial or uterine cancer, or in the case new evidence emergences.

The plaintiffs and defendants have talked to resolve differences regarding this proposal, but it has been indicated by the court that the parties have not been able to reach an agreement, with the judge overseeing the MDL indicating if it's needed for arguments to happen before the court to resolve the problem, they will end up being scheduled after August 29.

Federal regulators' proposal to ban formaldehyde from being used in chemical hair relaxing and straightening products, which cancer risks have been linked to, has been moved back until September, according to documents which were recently released.

The ban was first proposed in October 2023 by the FDA, and would affect not only formaldehyde but also chemicals which release it, like methylene glycol.

The agency originally indicated the rule would get finalized by April 2024, but April passed without the ban being finalized, and a lot of products are still being sold as hair relaxers or straighteners with formaldehyde, which might lead to ovarian cancer, uterine cancer or other injuries developing.

A reason for this delay hasn't been provided. News agencies are reporting that officials with the FDA say that adopting rules like this takes time, requiring approvals at numerous levels in the agency.

Manufacturers like Revlon and L'Oreal are facing thousands of lawsuits alleging that chemical hair relaxing and straightening products have caused women to develop injuries such as ovarian cancer, endometrial cancer and uterine cancer.

Formaldehyde is considered a human carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer and the U.S. National Toxicology Program. The EPA considers the chemical a probable human carcinogen.

A lawsuit was filed on July 10 by a woman from Michigan against Luster Products, Strength of Nature and L'Oreal. The lawsuit alleges that products made by these companies caused the woman to develop endometrial cancer, which she was diagnosed with in February 2021.

June saw 22 new cases added to the hair relaxer MDL, bringing the total number of cases to 8,192.

Two reasons exist for the slowing of growth of this litigation. One is that less victims are seeking lawyers - our law firm is not getting as many calls on this as we once were. Second is that interest has been renewed in filing hair relaxer lawsuits in state court.

The total number of cases which are pending in the hair relaxer MDL fell by almost 300 in May. This is due to plaintiffs opting to not move forward with cases which involve injuries that are not cancer. 8,170 cases are now pending in the MDL.

Defendants are claiming that some Plaintiffs' firms are trying to circumvent a case management order by submitting blank or almost blank Plaintiff Fact Sheets to meet deadlines.

The defendants say this tactic delays reception of PFS Warning Letters, granting plaintiffs more time to comply with obligations. The defendants are claiming it takes time in order for them to review PFSs, realize that some PFSs are blank, then send plaintiffs Warning Letters, and that this might provide 30-day periods to cure deficiencies.

This practice is not widespread. The defendants are claiming 65 plaintiffs submitted blank PFSs. There are probably only a few law firms who are engaged in this practice - a very small fraction of all of the lawsuits. However, if allegations by defendants are correct, the defendants are correct to complain about it and lawyers for the plaintiffs who are engaging in this conduct need to shape up.

Lawyers representing women who are currently pursuing hair straightener and hair relaxer lawsuits have asked the judge overseeing the hair relaxer MDL to dismiss claims without prejudice involving injuries that are not ovarian cancer, endometrial cancer or uterine cancer, thus allowing these women to refile future claims if they develop new injuries or diagnoses in the future.

The motion to dismiss the lawsuits notes that these women felt pressured to file timely claims despite not having been able to secure necessary medical records to confirm specific diagnoses on short notice, and that when their cases were filed, the women believed they had diagnoses of endometrial, uterine or ovarian cancer when they did not.

The motion notes it is "highly likely" that at least some of the plaintiffs will end up being diagnosed later on with one of the above cancer forms.

Thousands of lawsuits allege that chemical hair relaxing and straightening products have caused women to develop numerous forms of cancer.

A new round of defendants was added to the hair relaxer MDL. The defendants added to the MDL include:

• Bonner Brothers, Inc.
• John Paul Mitchell Systems, Inc.
• Murrays Worldwide, Inc.
• Wella Operations US, LLC
• Wella AG
• RNA Corp
• Advance Beauty Systems, Inc.
• Roux Laboratories

The defendants will end up on a separate MDL track regarding the bellwether process and discovery.

An additional group of defendants is being investigated, but no confirmation exists right now whether a third wave of defendants will be seen.

Lawsuits in the MDL allege that exposure to phthalates in chemical hair relaxing and straightening products has caused women to develop ovarian or uterine cancer.

Over 8,400 cases are pending in the MDL.

Federal regulators missed a deadline which was self-imposed regarding banning usage of formaldehyde in chemical hair straightening and relaxing products, and this move is expected to eventually lead to hair relaxer recalls over concerns of cancer.

In October 2023, the FDA proposed banning formaldehyde in the products, including banning chemicals which release formaldehyde like methylene glycol. The FDA indicated it expected this rule to be finalized by April 2024, but it is now May 2024 and no word has been given regarding the final rule. Numerous products are still sold which contain formaldehyde, which may lead to injuries such as ovarian cancer and uterine cancer developing.

In other news, 81 cases were added to the hair relaxer MDL in April, bringing the total number of pending cases to 8,468.

As of April 1, there were 8,387 cases pending in the hair relaxer MDL.

Attorneys are requesting the judge overseeing hair relaxer litigation to reject cosmetic manufacturers' effort to have claims from class action lawsuits dismissed, indicating these manufacturers are simply restating failed arguments which the court already rejected. The defendants argued federal law preempts claims regarding economic harm, that sufficient claims of injury haven't been filed by plaintiffs, and that plaintiffs lack the standing to establish a class action.

As of March 1, there were at least 8,334 lawsuits in the hair relaxer/hair straightener MDL, claiming that women developed ovarian cancer, uterine cancer or other injuries after being exposed to chemical hair relaxing or straightening products such as ORS Olive Oil, Optimum, Just for Me or Dark & Lovely.

According to a March 1 docket report, at least 8,334 lawsuits have been filed alleging that chemical hair relaxing and straightening products caused women to develop ovarian cancer, fibroids, uterine cancer or other injuries. The lawsuits allege the products' manufacturers knew or should have known of the risks associated with their products but failed to warn about them.

The manufacturer of chemical hair relaxing and hair straightening products filed a motion seeking to dismiss a class action lawsuit that seeks damages for consumers claiming they were unknowingly exposed to the risk of ovarian cancer and uterine cancer, as well as other injuries. Consumers in this class action are not necessarily claiming they have been diagnosed with a specific health condition. The defendants are claiming that federal law preempts the damages, that a sufficient injury claim hasn't been filed by the plaintiffs, and that the plaintiffs do not have the proper standing to file the class action lawsuit. If this motion to dismiss is successful, the thousands of individual hair relaxer lawsuits which have been filed across the country will not be affected.

Attorneys involved in federal hair straightener lawsuits met today with the judge presiding over the hair relaxer MDL in order to review proposals for selection of bellwether cases. Plaintiffs continued to push for the initial trials to be composed only of cases where women were diagnosed with endometrial, uterine or ovarian cancer.

The plaintiffs argued that most of the cases in the MDL are cases involving cancer, and that addressing these cancer types first allows for guidance regarding the valuation and viability of the lion's share of the docket.

Thousands of lawsuits have been filed in the past year, alleging that the manufacturers of popular chemical hair straightening and hair relaxing products, such as Optimum, ORS Olive Oil, Just For Me and Dark & Lovely, knew that their products contained dangerous endocrine-disrupting chemicals but failed to warn that these chemicals could cause injuries such as cancer.

A recent study has found that using chemical hair relaxers on a long-term basis is associated with a higher uterine cancer risk in post-menopausal black women. The study found that being exposed to chemicals found in chemical hair straightening and relaxing products can increase the risk that black women develop uterine cancer by up to 70 percent, depending on the woman's age, how often she uses the products and for how long she uses them.

Efforts by manufacturers of chemical hair straightening and hair relaxing products to dismiss claims numbering in the thousands have been rejected by the judge in charge of the hair relaxer MDL. The claims allege that women developed injuries such as ovarian cancer and uterine cancer after using the hair products.

The defendants had filed a motion to dismiss which claimed that federal law preempted the lawsuits, and that the plaintiffs' claims were not adequately presented. Judge Mary Rowland rejected these claims by the defendants on November 13.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has proposed a new rule which would ban formaldehyde, as well as other chemicals which can release formaldehyde, from the use in hair straightening or hair smoothing products which are marketed in the U.S. The proposed rule notes that the use of hair smoothing products which contain formaldehyde and chemicals which release formaldehyde has been linked with adverse health effects such as an increased risk of cancer.

On August 15, 2023, a consolidated class action complaint was filed regarding chemical hair straighteners and chemical hair relaxers. The complaint lists over 145 counts against makers of the products. The complaint claims the manufacturers violated over 20 states’ laws. The complaint alleges the products can cause cancer and seeks medical monitoring for the plaintiffs.

On August 3, 2023, a Short Form Complaint was approved in the hair relaxer MDL. The complaint will end up being filed in each action in the MDL. The complaint will identify specific injuries and products involved in each claim, and will adopt specific claims in the master complaint which are relevant to plaintiffs.

87 new hair straightener lawsuits got added to the hair relaxer multidistrict litigation in June. This represents the largest monthly total regarding new cases added to the MDL since the inception of the MDL. The number of cases being added to the MDL has steadily increased each month for four months. As of July 18, 2023, there were 236 cases pending in the MDL.

A new study found that beauty salon workers face over three times the risk of developing ovarian cancer when compared to other workers. The finding comes as the role of products like chemical hair straighteners and hair relaxers in the development of ovarian cancer is facing increased scrutiny due to lawsuits.

On May 15, 2023, a master complaint was filed in the hair relaxer/hair straightener MDL. This complaint may be used by any plaintiff who brings a claim in the MDL as long as the plaintiff adopts certain allegations by using a short-form complaint. The master complaints accuses the defendants of “wrongful marketing practices.” The complaint alleges the defendants “systematically misrepresented” impacts on health caused by chemical hair straighteners and hair relaxers. The complaint alleges that women suffered injuries such as ovarian cancer and uterine cancer as a result of using chemical hair relaxer and chemical hair straighteners.

According to an April 2023 docket report, over 100 lawsuits have now been filed against the manufacturers of chemical hair relaxing and hair straightening products.

U.S. District Judge Mary M. Rowland, who is presiding over pretrial and discovery proceedings in the hair relaxer MDL, recently asked the plaintiffs and defendants to work with one another to draft what is known as a direct filing order. The drafting of a direct filing order is the first step towards the creation of a master and short form complaint, which allows future plaintiffs to file a lawsuit directly through the MDL court rather than needing to wait for a lawsuit to be transferred into the MDL from a court in a different district.

There is a strict deadline for those who wish to file claims seeking financial compensation for injuries caused by hair relaxing products made by Revlon, since the company has filed for bankruptcy. A bankruptcy judge recently extended this deadline until April 11, 2023. Call us now for a free consultation. We can help you file a successful claim against Revlon and make sure it is filed correctly and on time.

The United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation recently consolidated dozens of hair relaxer lawsuits into a multidistrict litigation (MDL), to be handled in the Northern District of Illinois. The lawsuits claim that chemical hair relaxing products caused uterine cancer, uterine fibroids, breast cancer, endometriosis and ovarian cancer, and that the manufacturers of the products knew or should have known they could cause these conditions but didn’t warn about it.