Hair Relaxer Lawsuit | September 2024 Update

Studies Reveal Alarming Occurrence of Uterine Cancer in Hair Straightener or Relaxer Consumers

Lawsuit Updates

Please check back here regularly. This will be the most up-to-date page on the internet regarding hair relaxer litigation.

We will continue providing updates on the hair relaxer cancer lawsuit, where thousands of federal lawsuits have been consolidated into multidistrict litigation (MDL) in the Northern District of Illinois before Judge Mary Rowland. We anticipate thousands of new chemical hair straightener lawsuits will still be filed over the coming year.

This should continue to be one of the fastest-growing mass torts. The hair relaxer lawsuit is extremely strong as L'Oreal USA has a large market share. There is a growing body of scientific research and published studies linking uterine cancer to hair relaxer use. More scientific literature continues to be published on the toxic chemicals in hair relaxer products.

Further, plaintiff lawyers believe chemical hair straightener brands have long known that endocrine-disrupting chemicals in their products, such as phthalates, metals, and parabens, are known carcinogens (chemicals that cause cancer). 

Because brands such as L'Oreal failed to provide a warning that the use of such products could cause uterine cancer, they should be held responsible for the medical conditions their users now face. The link between hair relaxers and uterine cancer is extremely strong.

Here are the latest developments in the hair straightener uterine cancer lawsuits:

September 1, 2024 - Court Partially Approves Hair Relaxer MDL Common Benefit Fund, Limits Jurisdiction Over Non-MDL Cases

The order in the case In re Hair Relaxer Mktg. Sales Practices, & Prods. Liab. Litig. from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on August 22, 2024, addresses a motion filed by the Plaintiffs' Co-Lead Counsel (PLC). The PLC sought to establish protocols for common benefit fees and expenses in this multidistrict litigation (MDL 3060), which consolidates various lawsuits related to hair relaxer products alleged to cause cancer and other injuries.

Key Points from the Order:

1. Background of the MDL: The litigation was centralized to manage numerous lawsuits efficiently, reducing the risk of duplicative discovery and inconsistent rulings. The plaintiffs allege that hair relaxer products caused them significant harm, and the MDL's complexity includes over 8,400 cases.
2. Motion by PLC: The PLC moved to establish a common benefit fund to manage fees and expenses that arise from work benefitting all plaintiffs in the MDL. This fund is to be supported by assessments (or "holdbacks") from settlements or judgments in related cases.
3. Opposition by Keller Postman LLC: Keller Postman LLC, representing individual plaintiffs, opposed the motion, particularly objecting to the proposed 11% holdback (8% for attorney's fees and 3% for expenses). They argued this was excessive and premature.
4. Court's Decision: The court granted the PLC's motion in part and denied it in part. While the court acknowledged the need for a common benefit fund, it limited the application of assessments. The court ruled it did not have jurisdiction to impose assessments on cases that were not before it, such as those in state courts or those settled before filing in any court.
5. Legal Basis: The court discussed the legal limits of its authority, particularly in relation to the common benefit doctrine, its inherent managerial powers, and contract law. The court emphasized that its jurisdiction is confined to cases within the MDL and cannot extend to cases or recoveries outside this federal litigation.
6. Assessment Justification: The court upheld the 11% assessment as reasonable based on the factors typical in MDL cases, such as the complexity of the litigation and the substantial work required. However, it noted that excessive assessments could be refunded if found to be unreasonable later.

Conclusion:

The PLC's motion was partly successful, allowing for the establishment of a common benefit fund with a specified assessment. However, the court restricted the application of these assessments to cases within its jurisdiction, emphasizing that it cannot impose fees on recoveries outside the MDL. The PLC was directed to submit a revised order reflecting the court's decision.

August 25, 2024 - L'Oreal Continues to Fight Plaintiffs Over Discovery

L'Oreal USA has argued that personal jurisdiction has not been established over L'Oreal, SA, and this entity should not be forced to comply with discovery requests. L'Oreal is far and away the biggest defendant in hair relaxer litigation. In fact, L'Oreal is a named defendant in over 70% of pending hair relaxer lawsuits. Lawyers will continue to wage war with L'Oreal, and we believe the Court will ultimately force this defendant to comply.

August 1, 2024 - Increase in Case Filings and Pending Hair Relaxer Lawsuits - Upcoming Hearing

The hair relaxer and straightener cases have been consolidated into MDL 3060, a Multidistrict Litigation officially titled "In Re: Hair Relaxer Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation." This multidistrict litigation is being handled in the Northern District of Illinois, overseen by Judge Mary Rowland​.

As of August 2024, the multidistrict litigation (MDL) No. 3060, which consolidates cases involving hair relaxer products allegedly linked to cancer, continues to progress with several key developments:

Case Filings: The MDL has seen fluctuations in cases, with a current total of 8,192 active cases as of August 2024, up from 8,170 in June 2024​.

Discovery Phase: The litigation is in a crucial discovery phase. Parties are negotiating the scope of electronic discovery, which involves the defendants providing relevant documents and data. This process has been marked by disputes over the extent and duration of searches, with plaintiffs typically seeking more comprehensive discovery while defendants aim to limit the scope​.

Special Master Appointment: There have been ongoing discussions about appointing a Special Master to oversee electronic discovery issues. Both parties submitted candidates, with the defendants proposing a cap on the Special Master's fees, which plaintiffs opposed, arguing it would limit the efficiency of the discovery process.​

Defendant Responses: Several defendants, including Revlon, have sought dismissals of certain lawsuits, citing procedural issues such as plaintiffs' failure to file claims timely within the context of Revlon's bankruptcy proceedings. Additionally, motions for sanctions have been filed against some defendants for inadequate discovery responses.

According to the court's docket, a significant court proceeding will be held on August 29, 2024. This hearing is expected to address several critical procedural and substantive issues related to the ongoing litigation.

July 7, 2024 - Filing of Lawsuits Has Slowed Down

Only twenty-three chemical hair straightener lawsuits have been filed in the past thirty days. There are now 8,180 individual lawsuits centralized in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Keep in mind there are hundreds of lawsuits now pending in both Cook County (Illinois state court) and Fulton County (Georgia state court)

As previously discussed, the criteria for cases filed in state court tend to be more liberal. For instance, several lawyers are filing hair relaxer lawsuits wherein the woman alleges the chemical hair products caused uterine fibroids, resulting in a hysterectomy.

June 29, 2024 - Lawsuit in Georgia State Court Allowed to Proceed

A Georgia woman's claim that L'Oreal failed to warn consumers of dangers associated with toxic chemicals in chemical hair relaxers has been allowed to proceed. The Georgia Court of Appeals ruled against L'Oréal's argument that Georgia's Statute of Repose and Federal preemption law would force the Court to dismiss this lawsuit.

The Georgia trial court initially ruled the lawsuit filed by Kiara Burroughs was not preempted by Federal law and was sufficiently plead to survive a motion to dismiss. Ms. Burroughs has claimed that she developed uterine fibroids as a result of using chemical hair relaxers. 

Keep in mind there are active hair relaxer lawsuit dockets in Georgia State Court and Illinois State Court (Cook County). It is not unusual for lawyers to file in State Court to hedge their risks against adverse rulings in the MDL. 

Further, some hair relaxer lawyers are filing fibroid claims resulting in a hysterectomy in State Court. The plaintiff's leadership ceased accepting fibroid cases in the MDL last year. We believe hysterectomy claims during a woman's childbearing years have significant value. Thus, we are pursuing fibroid resulting in hysterectomy claims in Cook County, Illinois.

June 2, 2024 - Some Plaintiff Fact Sheets are Incomplete

According to a prior Case Management Order, all plaintiffs are required to submit a Plaintiff Fact Sheet (PFS) within a certain amount of time. The information disclosed on these sheets allows the defendants to organize the cases and respond more efficiently to each lawsuit.

Defendants are required to send a PFS Warning Letter to any plaintiffs whose information is incomplete or missing. The plaintiff then has 30 days to fix any disclosure problems and resubmit their PFS.

Defendants have submitted a list of 65 plaintiffs who provided completely blank Fact Sheets and several others who have not provided complete information. It appears some of the defendants' complaints are justified, while others may involve minor problems.

If some plaintiffs are trying to join the MDL without providing the necessary information and stalling for more time by submitting a blank PFS, the defendants have a valid argument. The law firms representing these few plaintiffs need to comply with the MDL rules and stop delaying the legal process for those who have complied.

At the same time, some plaintiff's counsel complained that after they had provided the additional information requested, the defendants had sent an additional warning letter alleging new deficiencies. This jockeying may be related to the upcoming determination of which cases may be chosen for the bellwether trial pool.

May 14, 2024 - Plaintiffs Request Judge to Allow Dismissal of Certain Lawsuits

It is not uncommon for the scientific criteria to tighten during the pendency of multidistrict litigation. The plaintiff's steering committee recently determined that uterine fibroids do not meet the criteria for inclusion. 

However, many plaintiff lawyers are pursuing claims involving uterine fibroids leading to a hysterectomy in state court. We are pursuing uterine fibroid hysterectomy claims in Illinois state court (Cook County) with local counsel. 

The plaintiffs filed a motion to dismiss without prejudice (and with leave of the court) on behalf of all women who have not been diagnosed with uterine cancer, endometrial cancer, or ovarian cancer. 

This motion indicates that many of these lawsuits were filed before there was a clear direction in the hair relaxer lawsuit MDL regarding which cancers and injuries would be the focus of this litigation. Further, the plaintiffs allege that many of the lawsuits were filed in a rushed manner to avoid statute of limitations issues. 

Finally, the plaintiffs contend that many of these women will inevitably be diagnosed with uterine, ovarian, or endometrial cancer in the future. A dismissal without prejudice allows these women to bring a lawsuit if and when they receive such a diagnosis. The Court has essentially left the door open for these women. 

May 12, 2024 - FDA Misses Deadline; Special Master For Electronic Discovery Appointed

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has been considering whether to propose a ban prohibiting hair straightening product manufacturers from using formaldehyde in their products. The deadline for imposing this ban has passed, and the FDA has done nothing. 

This is disappointing since formaldehyde has been previously linked to cancer in many products and many consumer groups, including Black women. So far, the FDA has not given an explanation for missing the deadline.

In spite of the Defendants' objections (see the May 1st entry below), Maura Grossman, a professor at the University of Waterloo, has been named the ESI Special Master. Professor Grossman holds several degrees, including a Law degree from Georgetown University, Ph.D. and M.A. degrees from Adelphi University, and a Bachelor's degree from Brown University. 

Her role in this litigation is to help address the complex electronic discovery matters expected to arise. She will attempt to navigate through the numerous discovery disputes sure to arise.

May 1, 2024 - Defendants Object to Proposed Special Master Who Worked With Them in the Past; 81 New Cases Join in April

The plaintiffs proposed naming Professor Maura Grossman as a special master in this MDL. Defendants object because Professor Grossman recently worked with them on a different litigation matter. 

They argue she ended her work on that litigation early in order to be considered for the special master position in this MDL. Defendants claim the professor cannot meet the necessary loyalty standards and overcome potential conflicts of interest.

At LLN, we assume the defendants did not care for the professor's opinions in the other case, so they do not want her involved in this litigation. Instead, they want the court to appoint Judge Paul Grimm as special master. Judge Grimm will likely do an excellent job if he is appointed.

The MDL grew by 81 new cases in April, bringing the total number of pending personal injury claims to 8,468. If you are considering a hair relaxer lawsuit, talk to the team at Lawsuit Legal News to learn more.

April 2, 2024 - Disagreements About the Right to Dismiss a Case Without Prejudice, Discovery Disputes, New Case Filings Slowing

Some injured plaintiffs have requested the right to dismiss their lawsuits or amend them without prejudice before the defendants file a response. The defendants object to this request, and both sides argue the other side is obstructing standard MDL procedures. 

Our team supports any plaintiff who needs to amend or dismiss their lawsuit, especially if they are unable to move forward due to their medical condition.

Another Special Master will be selected after both sides review the information to ensure there are no conflicts of interest. A Joint Status Report, due this week, should address search methods for pre-trial discovery. Unlike the start of the MDL, when thousands of cases were filed each month, only 53 new lawsuits joined the MDL in the past 30 days. The total number of pending lawsuits has reached 8,387.

March 4, 2024 - Special Master for Electronic Discovery Appointed But Fees in Dispute. 117 New Cases Added to the MDL

In February, both sides of the hair relaxer multidistrict litigation (MDL) discussed the appointment of a Special Master. In complex mass tort and dangerous product cases, a judge may appoint someone with knowledge and expertise to act as a Special Master to help resolve technical issues fairly and quickly.

Plaintiffs object to a fee limitation. The proposed fee cap is $10,000 per month, which works out to approximately 13 hours of the judge's time charged at $750 per hour.

Also, only 117 new cases joined the MDL in February. The total number of federal lawsuits is now 8,334.

February 6, 2024 - Nearly 200 New Cases Join the MDL; Trials Will Focus on 3 Types of Cancer

With the addition of 191 new lawsuits in January, there are now 8,217 pending claims in the hair relaxer cancer MDL. The number of new claims has dropped significantly since last summer, when 2,000 to 3,000 new cases per month were the norm.

The plaintiff's lawyers are focusing on three main types of cancer that should be the easiest to prove were caused by these products: uterine cancer, endometrial cancer, and ovarian cancer.

January 19 – Future Growth in the Hair Relaxer MDL

Court filings in the hair relaxer MDL have diminished considerably over the winter of 2023 and 2024, suggesting enrollment in the litigation has peaked. Although, the total number of cases has now exceeded 8,000.

Once an MDL is established, law firms and attorneys seek to inform potentially eligible claimants of their legal options. The subsequent growth rate of the MDL varies but typically reaches a natural plateau.

Plaintiffs have proposed a trial calendar for potential bellwether cases that extends into July for expert witness depositions. We don't expect any settlement offers until a trial date is pending, which could easily happen in 2025.

January 12, 2024 - The First Two Bellwether Trials Selected

Judge Rowland has selected the first two bellwether trials in the hair relaxer MDL (Northern District of Illinois). The initial trial is slated for November 3, 2025, and the second will occur on February 2, 2026. 

The mere fact we now have trial dates places some pressure on the defendants. Bellwether trials tend to be weighed heavily by both the plaintiff and defense in the context of potentially resolving all claims within the MDL. Trying every case in a mass tort or class action lawsuit is impossible. 

A bellwether trial allows both sides to see how a jury will weigh the scientific evidence and sheds light on the potential damages a jury may award. We are intrigued by how a jury will evaluate evidence exposure to chemical hair relaxers can increase the risk of women developing uterine cancer.

January 8, 2024 – Over 8,000 Pending Cases in Hair Relaxer MDL

From August 2023 to January 2024, the number of cases enrolled or pending in the hair relaxer MDL has increased from 300 to more than 8,100. Given the collective market share of the defendants in this litigation, we anticipate a drastic increase in court filings in the near future. 

The hair relaxer lawsuit MDL was established in February 2023 after various longtime users of popular haircare products developed severe medical conditions, including uterine cancer.

January 3 - Discovery Extends to Foreign Sales and Deadline for Interrogatories

Judge Mary Rowland accepted a request to extend the scope of the discovery process to include the international sale of hair products. In November, the court addressed the complex jurisdictional questions in the context of companies and corporations of international origin or scale, ultimately dismissing two defendants from the MDL. 

This recent development, however, enables plaintiffs to investigate the products, marketing, and revenue of defendants still participating in the hair relaxer litigation.

December 31, 2023 - The Lawsuit Continues to Grow

Much attention has been focused on the recently published Black Women's Health Study wherein the health records of just under 50,000 black women were tracked from 1997 through 2019. Women who utilized chemical hair relaxers for at least fifteen (15) years at a rate of use of five (5) times a year had an increased risk of uterine cancer (i.e., endometrial cancer and uterine sarcoma).

There is a growing body of scientific literature illustrating a link between the use of chemical hair relaxers and uterine cancer. The scientific community is already well aware of the relationship between formaldehyde and cancer when absorbed through the skin.

Further, chemical hair straighteners contain a multitude of endocrine-disrupting chemicals that create an elevated risk of hormonal cancers, which include reproductive cancers like ovarian cancer and uterine cancer.

Some folks on the plaintiff's steering committee question whether they will tighten the scientific criteria and pursue uterine fibroid cases in the hair relaxer lawsuit. Many confounding factors can account for uterine fibroids. 

We believe that uterine fibroids resulting in a hysterectomy during a woman's childbearing years are claims with potentially significant settlement value. If the plaintiff's leadership eventually decides not to pursue these claims in the hair relaxer MDL, plaintiff lawyers will pursue such claims in state court. 

There is already talk about hair relaxer lawsuits filed in Illinois state court (Cook County) and Georgia state court (Fulton County).

December 18, 2023 - More Lawsuit Plaintiffs

As of December 2023, nearly 8,000 plaintiffs have enrolled in the sweeping chemical hair relaxer multidistrict litigation (MDL). The exponential increase in filings in the final quarter of 2023 is largely attributable both to Judge Rowland’s reaffirmation of plaintiffs’ Master Long Form Complaint and an FDA proposal to ban hair products that contain formaldehyde. 

Moreover, the prosecution’s Leadership Development Committee (LDC) has requested the establishment of a common benefit fund. In multidistrict litigation, courts commonly appoint some kind of leadership structure to oversee plaintiffs’ collective activities, filings, and strategy. Common benefit funds serve to reimburse attorneys who participate in these court-approved committees. 

The LDC seeks an 11% rate for the common benefit fund, whose resources will derive from the compensation awarded to all counsel representing individual clients in the MDL. Judge Rowland has yet to issue an official ruling on the request. 

We believe 11% is an absurd request and the Court should allow no more than a 7% common benefit fee which is still on the high side. A huge common benefit fee will simply incentivize lawyers to file their hair relaxer lawsuits in state court.

November 16, 2023 - Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Chemical Hair Straightener Lawsuit Master Complaint Rejected

Judge Mary Rowland largely rejected the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The defense argued that federal law precluded the inclusion of various charges advanced under state statutes and that additional product liability claims were unviable. Judge Rowland’s ruling sustained the majority of plaintiffs’ charges at the pleading stage, including: 

• Design defect
• Failure to warn 
• Implied and Express warranty
• Unjust enrichment
• Punitive damages
• Derivative damages

However, the court ultimately dismissed the plaintiffs' fraud claims on the grounds that they failed to satisfy the stringent requirements under Rule 9(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In addition, two international defendants were excused from the litigation for want of appropriate jurisdiction. There are approximately 8000 hair relaxer cancer lawsuits in the MDL.

We are noting an increase in television advertising related to the chemical hair straightener lawsuit. In turn, the general public is learning of the toxic chemicals, including endocrine disruptors in hair relaxer products. Exposure to endocrine disruptors will often lead to hormonal imbalances. Ovarian cancer and uterine cancer are both considered hormonal cancers.

Exposure to endocrine disruptors will often lead to hormonal imbalances. Ovarian cancer and uterine cancer are both considered hormonal cancers. A master complaint is necessary to spell out the scope of plaintiffs' common allegations of fact and law.

September 1, 2023 - Judge Rowland Holds Hair Straightener Lawsuit Status Conference

Judge Rowland held a status conference this past week where she provided the lawyers one week to enter a joint status report concerning the recent motion to dismiss filed by McBride (one of the smaller defendants), one of a handful of defendants in the hair straightener cancer lawsuits. Further, a bankruptcy attorney addressed the Court regarding the recent filing of a Chapter 11 bankruptcy by Revlon.

August 15, 2023 - New Master Complaint Approved

Judge Rowland approved a master complaint for the chemical hair straightener cancer lawsuit. The master complaint is nearly 400 pages long and thoroughly breaks down the plaintiffs' common allegations and legal claims against hair relaxer manufacturers. 

August 1, 2023 - Over 400 Lawsuits in MDL

The Hair Relaxer Cancer Lawsuits is one of the fastest-growing mass torts ever. In seven months, some 400 lawsuits have been filed into the MDL with common allegations that the use of chemical hair straighteners resulted in uterine cancer, ovarian cancer, endometrial cancer, and cervical cancer.

May 1, 2023 - Short Form Complaint Approved

Judge Mary Rowland made it easier for plaintiffs to file lawsuits against the likes of L'Oreal, Revlon, and Dabur International (the largest manufacturers of hair straighteners) by approving a short-form complaint to file directly into the MDL.

February 8, 2023 - Multidistrict Litigation is Created

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) has consolidated all hair straightener cancer lawsuits filed in Federal Courts throughout the U.S. before Judge Mary M. Rowland in the Northern District of Illinois. Approximately sixty (60) lawsuits will be transferred into the Northern District of Illinois this month.

January 28, 2023 - JPML Meets Today to Discuss The Lawsuit

The Joint Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) met today in Miami to discuss consolidating all lawsuits filed in Federal District Courts nationwide in the hair relaxer class action. We strongly believe the JPML will inevitably consolidate all lawsuits in the Northern District of Illinois for convenience to all plaintiffs and defendants. Further, several hair straightener lawsuits are pending in the Northern District of Illinois. 

Why You Should Choose Lawsuit Legal News to Help With Your Lawsuit

We are proud to have earned numerous distinctions on our way to being a nationally recognized, award-winning personal injury legal team. We are dedicated to helping clients whose defective products have harmed.

Our hair relaxer attorneys provide over 120 years of combined experience in product liability to advocate for clients suffering serious, complicated injuries and losses. We'll use our knowledge and skills to help you prepare and present a solid product liability case to recover the losses you deserve.

The Dolman Law Group has represented over 10,000 victims of negligence and has collected over $500 million in compensation on behalf of our clients. Matthew Dolman is an experienced attorney who has been repeatedly selected by his colleagues as one of Florida's Legal Elite and a Florida Superlawyer multiple times.

Matthew has been active in the hair straightener class action lawsuit since the beginning. The hair relaxer lawyers at Dolman Law Group have studied the harmful chemicals in these hair relaxer and hair straightener products. We are well versed in the health conditions associated with the dangerous chemicals in hair straighteners, including phthalates, phenols, and paragons.

More specific chemicals in hair relaxers include formaldehyde, sodium hydroxide, and lye are known carcinogens (i.e., chemicals that can cause cancer when one is exposed to them in sufficient quantity).

When you speak with one of our product liability lawyers, we can explain whether you can take legal action, who you can hold responsible, the damages you can request, and how the process works.

Our goal is to help you recover the compensation you need to put your life back in order and hold negligent manufacturers responsible for the injuries their products cause.

We believe that manufacturers such as L'Oreal knew full well just how dangerous their chemical straighteners were and failed to warn prospective consumers.

How the Product Liability Lawyers at LLN can Help you File a Lawsuit

To join this MDL, all injured plaintiffs must prepare and file a Short Form Complaint and comply with the legal procedures required by the MDL judge. If you have questions about bringing a hair product claim, start by consulting with an experienced product liability lawyer affiliated with Lawsuit Legal News (LLN). The team at LLN can:

• Explain the complicated legal process,
• Help you gather and prepare the necessary evidence required to support your claim,
• Help you decide whether to file a civil lawsuit or join the multi-district litigation (MDL) now pending in Illinois and
• Fight for your rights to receive the compensation you deserve.

The LLN team is actively investigating hair straightener injury claims against several different manufacturers. We understand the serious impact a cancer diagnosis can have on the lives of countless consumers, and we are prepared to fight for you.

How Can You Hold Product Manufacturers Responsible for Causing Cancer?

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration regulates cosmetics and other products sold in our country. Manufacturers must make cosmetics safe for consumers who follow the label instructions or customary procedures for using the product. Hair care products must meet rigorous safety standards to make them safe, effective, and not dangerous to society.

Consumers who purchase hair products have the right to expect that these treatments will not harm them or cause an increased risk of cancer. Hair straightening product manufacturers are legally obligated to provide safe hair products and warn about cancer-causing ingredients. If a manufacturer fails to market a safe product or warn about its potential dangers, you can bring a claim to hold it responsible for paying compensation for the injuries its product caused. 

If a dangerous product injures you, turn to a nationally recognized and award-winning law firm that understands what you are facing. Our team of product liability and mass tort lawyers has advocated for many injured consumers and filed numerous product liability lawsuits against manufacturers that create and sell items that harm users.

If you have developed uterine cancer after using hair straightening or relaxing products, don't wait to contact the team of product liability lawyers at LLN to discuss your right to file a lawsuit.

Recent Studies Show a Connection Between Uterine Cancer and Hair Straightener Use

The Journal of the National Cancer Institute (JNCI) published a study analyzing the relationship between hair straightening and relaxing products and the occurrence of uterine cancer among consumers. The researchers followed 33,947 participants from The Sister Study.

The Sister Study tracked almost 51,000 women from 2003 to 2009. The participants were women ages 35 to 74 who were breast cancer-free at the start of the study but had at least one sister who was diagnosed with breast cancer. Through questionnaires and self-reporting, the study analyzed thousands of women, the products they used over several years, and the incidence of cancer among the group.

The researchers involved in the JNCI study noted:

“In the Sister Study, we have previously observed a higher breast cancer incidence associated with adolescent and adult use of hair products and a higher ovarian cancer incidence associated with adult use of straighteners.” Citations omitted.

A study by the International Journal of Cancer reported possible links between products such as hair straighteners and hair dyes and the development of breast and ovarian cancers. So, although hair products have been controversial for a long time because of their chemical makeup and the harm they can cause, no one has looked for a link to uterine cancer until now.

The JNCI study examined Sister Study data provided by roughly 33,500 women who met the qualifications for the program. These women reported using several different hair products, including hair straighteners, relaxers, hair color, permanents, body waves, and other hair modifying products.

Finding a Statistical Link Between Uterine Cancer and Chemical Hair Straighteners

Of the 33,497 participants in the JNCI study, 378 women reported a uterine cancer diagnosis. The results indicated that only 1.64 percent of women who reported they never used hair straightening products developed uterine cancer by age 70. However, 4.05 percent of women in the study who used chemical hair straighteners or relaxers developed uterine cancer by age 70.

The study also found that women who used chemical hair straighteners within the prior year had a higher risk of developing uterine cancer than those who had never used these products. In an even more frightening finding, women who reported using chemical hair straighteners four or more times in the past year suffered an even higher risk of uterine cancer.

The Science Behind the Hair Relaxer Lawsuit

Overall, uterine cancer is fairly rare. Although the number of women reporting a cancer diagnosis appears low, these statistics show a sizable increase in cancer risks linked to using chemical hair straighteners. Also, this study uncovers an ethnic bias against Black women because more Black women use hair straighteners than Caucasian women, usually from an early age. Unfortunately, uterine cancer is more common in Black women, and Black women are more likely to die from uterine cancer than other ethnicities.

The study participants who used hair straighteners were diagnosed with uterine cancer more than twice as often as those who never used straighteners. Considering the large number of women involved in this study, these findings may link thousands of uterine cancer cases to hair product use.

Hair Relaxer Uterine Cancer FAQs

Uterine Cancer Basics and the Harm You May Suffer

Uterine cancer falls into two types—Type 1 endometrial cancer is more common, while Type 2 uterine sarcoma is more rare. Doctors can often cure this cancer in the early stages by performing a hysterectomy or other surgery. Other treatments, such as immunotherapy and chemotherapy, may work, depending on the type and severity of the cancer.

Uterine cancer patients experience similar symptoms, procedures, and challenges as other cancer patients, including:

• Surgery involving risks, pain, and extended recovery.
• Chemotherapy with strong drugs to destroy cancer cells. 
• Radiation using targeted beams that burn and destroy cancer cells. 
• Hormone replacement therapy, since the condition involves the reproductive system. Patients might receive hormones to replace what the body can no longer create or to block further cancer growth.
• Medicine therapy focusing on keeping certain types of cancer cells from growing.
• Immunotherapy to stimulate the patient’s natural immune system to fight cancer.

These treatments often make the patient nauseated and unable to eat. Certain chemicals also can reduce their ability to fight off other diseases or conditions, such as pneumonia or even the common cold. 

Uterine cancer patients may also face:

• Skin burns from radiation, 
• Reactions to medications, 
• The inability to perform basic daily activities,
• Loss of employment, 
• Extensive and long-term medical care and rehabilitation,
• Mental and emotional distress and 
• Death.

Since most uterine cancer victims have surgeons remove their uterus, they can no longer bear children and will probably start menopause regardless of their age. These circumstances create another group of physical and emotional repercussions beyond the typical issues faced by cancer survivors.

You Can Afford to Partner With Lawsuit Legal News

At Lawsuit Legal News. we strive to help those injured by ruthless corporations that care more about their bottom lines than their customers' health and safety. Often, dangerous product victims do not have the financial resources to pay their medical bills and monthly expenses, let alone legal fees. This is why we don't charge for legal consultations and case reviews, and we don't receive payment until you receive compensation for your losses.

With no upfront costs and no legal fees owed until you have money from the liable company, you have nothing to lose by working with us. Reach out today for a free consultation to discuss a potential hair relaxer lawsuit.

Trust LLN to Handle Your Hair Straightener Cancer-Related Lawsuit

If you or a loved one used chemical hair straighteners or relaxers and then received a uterine cancer diagnosis, we can help. We promise to provide the highest quality services as we guide you through the complicated product liability legal process. Let us help you pursue your legal options and find peace of mind.

Call 866-535-9515 today or complete our simple online form for a free consultation.