Hair Relaxer Lawsuit: What the Court Has Said in MDL No. 3060

What the hair relaxer lawsuit claims

The court's opinion of November 13, 2023 opens: “In this multidistrict litigation, Plaintiffs claim that Defendants advertised, manufactured and sold toxic hair relaxer products that caused Plaintiffs to develop cancers and other injuries.” (In re Hair Relaxer Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 3060, No. 1:23-cv-00818, Doc. 291, at 1 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 13, 2023))

When the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation sent the cases to one court, it found they shared, in the words the court quotes, “common questions of fact arising from allegations that defendants’ hair relaxer products contain phthalates, including di-2-ethylhexylphthalate, or other endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs), and that the use of such products caused or increased the risk of developing uterine, ovarian, or breast cancer, endometriosis, uterine fibroids, or other injuries to the reproductive system.” (In re Hair Relaxer Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 3060, No. 1:23-cv-00818, Doc. 291, at 2 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 13, 2023) (quoting the Panel's Transfer Order))

The Panel noted the study the cases followed: “[o]n October 17, 2022, a study led by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) reported findings that women who frequently used chemical hair straightening or hair relaxer products were more than twice as likely to develop uterine cancer as women who did not use such products.” (In re Hair Relaxer Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 3060, No. 1:23-cv-00818, Doc. 291, at 2 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 13, 2023) (quoting the Panel's Transfer Order))

And what the plaintiffs ask for, as the court describes the master complaint: “Plaintiffs in this MDL seek relief in the form of compensatory and punitive damages, monetary restitution, medical monitoring and equitable relief, and other remedies” (In re Hair Relaxer Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 3060, No. 1:23-cv-00818, Doc. 291, at 4 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 13, 2023)).

These are claims and allegations. The court's opinion takes them as true only to decide whether the complaint states a claim, as it says itself, and no document read for this page decides whether the products caused any injury.

Where the hair relaxer lawsuit is

In the court's words, the Panel “consolidated individual and putative class actions, then pending in nineteen districts, for pretrial proceedings in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1407.” (In re Hair Relaxer Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 3060, No. 1:23-cv-00818, Doc. 291, at 1 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 13, 2023)) The Panel's report lists the date transferred as February 6, 2023, and the master docket as 1:23-cv-818.

The judge is Mary M. Rowland of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The Panel's report of October 1, 2026 lists 12,381 actions now pending in MDL No. 3060, and 16,828 in total since it began. The figures are the report's, as of its date, and this page prints them with that date.

An MDL gathers cases for pretrial proceedings, in the words quoted above. Nothing on this page is a way to file a case or to take part in one.

The claims in the master complaint

In the court's words, “The master complaint contains fifteen counts” (In re Hair Relaxer Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 3060, No. 1:23-cv-00818, Doc. 291, at 4 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 13, 2023)). Among them: “negligence and/or gross negligence (Count 1)” (In re Hair Relaxer Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 3060, No. 1:23-cv-00818, Doc. 291, at 4 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 13, 2023)); “strict liability: design defect (Count 4); strict liability: failure to warn (Count 5)” (In re Hair Relaxer Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 3060, No. 1:23-cv-00818, Doc. 291, at 4 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 13, 2023)); “negligent misrepresentation (Count 2)” (In re Hair Relaxer Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 3060, No. 1:23-cv-00818, Doc. 291, at 4 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 13, 2023)); and “fraud/fraudulent misrepresentation (Count 8); fraudulent concealment (Count 9)” (In re Hair Relaxer Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 3060, No. 1:23-cv-00818, Doc. 291, at 4 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 13, 2023)).

For a death or a family's loss: “wrongful death (Count 12); survival action (Count 13); loss of consortium (Count 14)” (In re Hair Relaxer Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 3060, No. 1:23-cv-00818, Doc. 291, at 4 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 13, 2023)). The court adds: “The wrongful death, survival, and loss of consortium are derivative claims.” (In re Hair Relaxer Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 3060, No. 1:23-cv-00818, Doc. 291, at 4 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 13, 2023))

On federal law, the court notes: “Defendants concede that FDCA preemption does not apply to product liability claims.” (In re Hair Relaxer Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 3060, No. 1:23-cv-00818, Doc. 291, at 6 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 13, 2023))

What the court decided on the motions to dismiss

The defendants asked the court to dismiss the master complaint. On November 13, 2023 the court ruled: “Counts 2, 8 and 9 are dismissed. Count 10 is dismissed as to the fraud-based claims only. The motions to dismiss the remaining claims are denied.” (In re Hair Relaxer Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 3060, No. 1:23-cv-00818, Doc. 291, at 25 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 13, 2023))

So the negligent misrepresentation, fraud and fraudulent concealment counts were dismissed, and the negligence and strict liability counts were not. On design defect, the court wrote: “At a later stage of the litigation, Defendants will be able to challenge the studies. For now, Defendants’ critique is premature. Plaintiffs have sufficiently stated a design defect claim.” (In re Hair Relaxer Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 3060, No. 1:23-cv-00818, Doc. 291, at 13 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 13, 2023))

On the warnings, the court described the claim: “Plaintiffs claim that Defendants failed to give an appropriate and adequate warning of the risks of uterine cancer, ovarian cancer, and endometrial cancer.” (In re Hair Relaxer Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 3060, No. 1:23-cv-00818, Doc. 291, at 13 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 13, 2023)) And it held: “Taking the factual allegations as true and drawing reasonable inferences in Plaintiffs’ favor at this stage, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have stated a failure to warn claim.” (In re Hair Relaxer Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 3060, No. 1:23-cv-00818, Doc. 291, at 15 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 13, 2023))

A ruling on a motion to dismiss decides whether the complaint states a claim, with its allegations taken as true. It is not a finding that the products caused any injury, and the court's own words say the studies can be challenged later.

The short form complaint, and the records to keep

Each plaintiff's own facts go in a short form complaint. The court notes: “The Court adopted the short form complaint on August 3, 2023.” (In re Hair Relaxer Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 3060, No. 1:23-cv-00818, Doc. 291, at 3 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 13, 2023) n.2) Its Case Management Order No. 8 reads, as the court quotes it: “[f]or each action in the MDL, subject to this Order, the Master Complaint, together with the Short Form Complaint shall be deemed the operative complaint.” (In re Hair Relaxer Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 3060, No. 1:23-cv-00818, Doc. 291, at 3 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 13, 2023) n.2 (quoting Case Management Order No. 8))

And on products, the court wrote that “the SFC is the place where each individual plaintiff identifies the particular products they used and other factual details to support their complaint.” (In re Hair Relaxer Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 3060, No. 1:23-cv-00818, Doc. 291, at 9 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 13, 2023))

So the records that matter are the ones that show which products you used and when: product names, packaging if you kept it, receipts or salon records, and photographs. Keep the medical records of the diagnosis and the treatment, with the dates, every bill, and the records of work missed.

Filing periods, and the state law the court did not parse

The court said it would not decide the differences between the states' laws at that stage: “This Court will again not parse state law variations at this stage of the case.” (In re Hair Relaxer Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 3060, No. 1:23-cv-00818, Doc. 291, at 20 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 13, 2023))

No document read for this page says which state's filing period applies to a hair relaxer claim, or when its clock starts. So this page counts no deadline.

The product liability calculator on this site quotes each state's period and repose for a product claim from its code. A lawyer can say which applies to your claim, and whether a rule on when an injury was discovered changes it.

What this page does not say about money

No document read for this page states a settlement, a verdict or a trial figure for the hair relaxer cases, so this page states none and does not estimate one.

What the checker above does is add up the costs you can document, so you have one figure to bring to a lawyer. It is the sum of what you enter and nothing else.

Talking to a lawyer about a hair relaxer lawsuit

This site is not a law firm, does not refer anyone to a lawyer, and cannot say what a lawyer would recover. The questions that decide a claim are ones the court and a lawyer answer: whether your injury and the products you used fit a claim, which state's law applies, and the filing period for your claim.

Bring the product records, the medical records with their dates, your record of costs, and the court text this page quotes.