Beyond the Great Hair Reckoning: The Future of Beauty Regulation in Africa

Image Credit: Admar Kamosso

Beauty and Cosmetics Law Africa (BCLA) | Article Series: Exploring the Global Hair Relaxer Litigation and its Implications for the African Beauty Market — Part III

Introduction

The "Great Hair Reckoning" is not yet over. With more than 11,000 cases pending in MDL No. 3060, bellwether trials not expected until early 2027, and no global settlement in sight, the litigation remains in its formative stages. The defendants continue to deny liability, and the scientific evidence remains under expert review. The proceedings before the Northern District of Illinois are likely to continue for several years.

The question this series has been building toward is a strategic one: what should the African beauty industry do now, before the verdicts are delivered, the litigation concludes, and regulatory and commercial responses begin to take shape?

Previous product liability litigation offers useful lessons. From tobacco and asbestos to talc, history suggests that industries facing significant legal and regulatory pressure rarely reform all markets simultaneously. Product reformulation and regulatory compliance often occur first in jurisdictions where legal, commercial, or regulatory pressures are greatest, while changes elsewhere may follow more gradually. Throughout that process, manufacturers typically continue to defend the safety of their products while managing litigation and regulatory risk. Where regulatory oversight is less developed and distribution channels are more fragmented, consumers may bear a disproportionate share of any remaining product safety risks.

Africa does not have to accept that outcome. But achieving a different one will require deliberate action by regulators, industry, professionals, researchers, and civil society. This article considers what that action might look like.

How Brands Will Respond: A Realistic Assessment

It is worth being clear-eyed about what the litigation is—and is not—likely to produce from the manufacturer side.

The defendants in MDL 3060 continue to deny liability. L'Oréal has publicly maintained that its products are safe and that the claims against it lack legal merit. Revlon, while navigating bankruptcy proceedings and establishing a fund for certain hair relaxer claims, has similarly disputed the alleged causal link between its products and the injuries claimed. Both companies, together with other defendants, have vigorously contested discovery, including disputes over the production of formulation documents and other internal records.

Such litigation strategies are common in complex product liability proceedings and should not, in themselves, be taken as evidence of liability. They do, however, suggest that significant changes to product formulations or greater transparency regarding ingredient decisions are unlikely to occur voluntarily in the absence of legal, regulatory, or commercial pressure. Historically, meaningful product reformulation has often followed one or more of three developments: significant litigation outcomes, regulatory intervention in major markets, or sustained reputational pressure affecting consumer confidence.

The first of those developments remains uncertain. The second is already evident in some jurisdictions, including California's restrictions on formaldehyde in cosmetics and the European Union's evolving regulation of endocrine-disrupting substances. The third is also emerging in parts of the Global North, where both consumer preferences and sustained public attention have increased scrutiny of hair relaxer products.

These pressures do not necessarily operate with the same intensity across African markets. As a result, absent deliberate regulatory or industry intervention, African consumers could face a period in which locally available products may not reflect reformulations introduced in more highly regulated jurisdictions.

The Regulatory Opportunity: Infrastructure That Already Exists

The starting point for any serious discussion of African regulatory reform is to recognise what already exists. While regulatory action has been uneven, the institutional infrastructure for meaningful reform is considerably more developed than is often assumed.

At the continental level, the African Organisation for Standardisation (ARSO), the African Union's specialised standards body, has established a dedicated Technical Committee on Cosmetics and Personal Care Products (ARSO/TC 40), alongside ARSO/TC 72 on Cosmetology and Wellness. In October 2025, ARSO signed the Kigali Agreement with the International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO), establishing a framework to accelerate standards harmonisation across African Union member states in support of the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA).

The 32nd ARSO General Assembly, scheduled for August 2026 in Kampala, includes a dedicated workshop on Cosmetology and Related Standards and Conformity Assessment Programmes, focused on addressing regulatory and technological barriers in Africa's cosmetology sector. Bringing together standards bodies from across the continent, the workshop presents an important opportunity to consider the findings of the NIH Sister Study, the implications of MDL 3060, and the chemicals currently under scientific and regulatory scrutiny.

At the national level, regulators such as NAFDAC in Nigeria, the Pharmacy and Poisons Board (PPB) and Kenya Bureau of Standards (KEBS) in Kenya, and SAHPRA in South Africa already possess legislative powers to review restricted substances, strengthen ingredient disclosure requirements, and introduce or update product safety standards where appropriate. The question, therefore, moves from whether regulatory authority exists to whether there is sufficient institutional capacity and political commitment to exercise it proactively, rather than in response to a public health or legal crisis.

What Proactive Action Looks Like: Five Priorities

1. Incorporate the MDL's chemical list into national restricted substances reviews

Several of the chemicals that have featured prominently in the hair relaxer litigation, including phthalates, parabens, formaldehyde, and formaldehyde-releasing preservatives such as DMDM hydantoin, are already the subject of scientific and regulatory scrutiny in multiple jurisdictions. African regulators need not await the outcome of the U.S. litigation before considering whether these substances warrant review under their own regulatory frameworks. A formal scientific assessment, informed by the NIH Sister Study, other relevant scientific literature, and regulatory developments in jurisdictions such as the European Union, Brazil, Canada, and California, would provide a proportionate and evidence-based starting point. Nigeria's consumer advisory on formaldehyde-containing hair products indicates that regulators are already engaging with some of these issues. Building on that engagement through formal standards reviews would represent a logical next step.

2. Use the AfCFTA and ARSO frameworks to build a continent-wide cosmetics safety baseline

As discussed in Part II of this series, Africa's fragmented regulatory landscape remains one of the principal structural challenges to effective cosmetics regulation. The AfCFTA's harmonisation agenda, together with ARSO's role as the continent's standards body under the Kigali Agreement, provides an institutional foundation for developing a common African baseline for cosmetic ingredient safety that reflects current scientific knowledge and international regulatory developments. The forthcoming ARSO workshop on Cosmetology and Related Standards and Conformity Assessment Programmes in Kampala presents an important opportunity to advance that conversation. Broader participation by consumer organisations, public health experts, legal practitioners, industry representatives, and civil society would strengthen the dialogue around cosmetics regulation and product safety.

3. Extend regulatory reach into informal distribution channels

Ingredient restrictions are only as effective as the systems that enforce them. Where cosmetics are distributed through informal markets, unregistered distributors, or social commerce platforms operating beyond routine regulatory oversight, implementation becomes significantly more challenging. Effective enforcement strategies should therefore reflect the realities of contemporary distribution channels and may include enhanced market surveillance, point-of-sale disclosure requirements, and improved traceability mechanisms for imported cosmetics.

For many jurisdictions, the principal challenge may lie less in legislative authority than in regulatory capacity, coordination, and enforcement. Strengthening those institutional capabilities is likely to be as important as adopting new standards.

4. Build a rights-based framework for cosmetic consumer protection

Viewed through a consumer-protection lens, the hair-relaxer litigation raises important questions about informed consumer choice, product safety, and the adequacy of product warnings. The plaintiffs allege that they were not adequately informed about the ingredients contained in the products they used or the potential health risks associated with long-term use. A rights-based approach to cosmetics regulation would place greater emphasis on consumers' access to accurate information, protection from misleading claims, and the safeguarding of health. Such an approach complements traditional regulatory frameworks by recognising cosmetic safety as both a public health and consumer protection issue.

Several African constitutions, including Nigeria's, contain provisions relevant to consumer protection. Regional human rights instruments, including the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights, may also provide an important normative framework for advancing consumer rights within the cosmetics sector. Framing cosmetics regulation in this way could strengthen the basis for public interest advocacy, regulatory engagement, and, where appropriate, future legal action.

5. Invest in African-centred research

The NIH Sister Study was conducted on a U.S. cohort, and while its findings are highly relevant to the global discussion, they do not directly examine the exposure patterns, product formulations, or health outcomes of African women. African universities, public health institutions, and research funders are therefore well placed to generate continent-specific evidence that reflects local products, consumer practices, and regulatory environments. Such research would strengthen the evidentiary basis for future regulatory decisions, inform litigation where appropriate, and ensure that policy development in Africa is grounded in African evidence.

For the Beauty Industry: Leadership, Not Compliance

This series is not an argument against Africa's beauty industry. Quite the opposite. Africa's beauty sector is one of the continent's most dynamic industries, driven by innovation, entrepreneurship, and deep cultural significance. The purpose of this series has been to foster a regulatory and commercial environment that supports its long-term growth and credibility.

For beauty brands, distributors, salon professionals, and industry associations, the ongoing litigation presents an opportunity to demonstrate leadership rather than simply respond to future regulatory requirements. Businesses that review ingredient safety, strengthen supply chain due diligence, communicate transparently with consumers, and engage constructively with emerging regulatory frameworks are likely to be better positioned as consumer expectations and regulatory standards continue to evolve.

In the beauty industry, consumer confidence is built over time but can be lost quickly. Transparency, product stewardship, and responsible governance are increasingly becoming important markers of brand value. For African businesses, responding proactively to these developments is a matter of regulatory compliance, and it is an investment in long-term trust, resilience, and market credibility.

Conclusion: The Reckoning Is An Opportunity

Major product liability litigation has often left a lasting imprint on industry practice and regulation. The tobacco litigation reshaped public health policy, asbestos litigation influenced occupational health and safety standards, and more recent litigation involving talc has prompted renewed scrutiny of product safety, corporate governance, and ingredient transparency.

The ultimate impact of the hair relaxer litigation remains to be seen. However, if history is any guide, it has the potential to influence future approaches to cosmetics regulation, product stewardship, and consumer protection. The question for the African beauty market is not simply how it will respond to those developments, but whether it will play an active role in shaping them.

Africa is not starting from scratch. Continental institutions, national regulators, and regional legal frameworks already provide a foundation for meaningful action. A growing body of scientific research is available to inform regulatory decision-making, and many jurisdictions possess the legislative authority to strengthen cosmetics regulation where appropriate. The remaining challenge lies in translating those institutional and legal foundations into coordinated regulatory and industry action.

BCLA's position is straightforward: Africa has an opportunity to help shape the future of cosmetics regulation rather than merely respond to developments elsewhere. This series has sought to contribute to that conversation by examining the legal, regulatory, and policy questions raised by one of the most significant product liability proceedings facing the global beauty industry.

This article is the third and final instalment of BCLA's series: Exploring the Global Hair Relaxer Litigation and its Implications for the African Beauty Market. All three articles are available on our platform. This series is intended for informational and educational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. All information is current as of the date of publication.