Inside the Global Hair Relaxer Litigation Wave

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

Image Credit: Tatyana Koren Yugina

Introduction

If you follow beauty industry news in the United States, you may have seen the headlines. Thousands of women are suing some of the world's largest cosmetics companies. Claims of cancer. One of the biggest mass tort proceedings in recent memory. The phrase "Great Hair Reckoning" has entered the legal lexicon.

But if you live and work in Africa, if you are a beauty professional, a brand distributor, a regulator, or simply someone who has used a relaxer since childhood, this story may have felt distant. It is not.

This article is the first in a series by Beauty and Cosmetics Law Africa (BCLA) examining the global hair relaxer litigation and its implications for the African beauty market. This article will establish the factual and scientific foundation of this legal wave, separate the evidence from the noise, and explain why it demands serious attention on this continent.

What Is Actually Happening: The Litigation at a Glance

The formal name is In re: Hair Relaxer Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation, consolidated as MDL No. 3060 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, before Judge Mary M. Rowland. It is a Multidistrict Litigation (MDL), a procedural mechanism used in U.S. federal courts to consolidate thousands of lawsuits sharing common facts into a single court for pretrial purposes.

As of early 2026, the MDL comprises over 11,000 pending cases, making it one of the five largest active MDLs in the entire U.S. federal court system. The case began with just 44 lawsuits in early 2023. It has grown by thousands every year since.

The central allegations are that chemical hair relaxers contain endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs), including phthalates, parabens, and formaldehyde-releasing agents, that have been linked to serious hormone-related cancers, particularly uterine cancer and endometrial cancer, with emerging evidence regarding ovarian cancer as well. Plaintiffs argue that the manufacturers of these products knew about these risks, failed to adequately warn consumers, and continued to market the products aggressively to Black women and girls.

The defendants named in MDL 3060 are not obscure companies. They are the same multinational brands whose products line the shelves of beauty supply stores globally. They include L'Oréal USA and its subsidiary SoftSheen-Carson, the manufacturers of Dark & Lovely, Mizani, and Optimum. They include Revlon (Creme of Nature, Realistic), Strength of Nature (African Pride, Motions, TCB, Dr Miracle's), Dabur International and Namasté Laboratories (ORS Olive Oil), Godrej SON Holdings (Just For Me, Africa's Best), and several others. These are household names across the African diaspora and on the continent itself.

A court-appointed Special Master, Ellen K. Reisman, is overseeing settlement negotiations. Bellwether trials, early test cases designed to gauge how juries respond to the evidence, are expected in 2027, following an intensive expert discovery and Daubert challenge process. Projected individual settlements for cancer claims have been estimated in the range of $150,000 to $750,000, though no global settlement has been reached.

The Science

Every major product liability wave in history has been accompanied by a chorus of dismissals: junk science, ambulance-chasing lawyers, exaggerated claims. Some of those dismissals have been warranted. In this case, they are not, and understanding why is essential.

The scientific foundation of this litigation rests primarily on a landmark study published in October 2022 in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute (JNCI), one of the world's most prestigious oncology journals. The research drew on data from the NIH Sister Study, a long-running prospective cohort study led by the U.S. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), part of the National Institutes of Health.

The Sister Study tracked 33,497 women between the ages of 35 and 74 across the United States over an average of nearly 11 years. At enrollment, participants reported their use of various hair products, including relaxers, dyes, bleach, and perms. Over the study period, 378 uterine cancer cases were diagnosed.

The findings were striking:

• Women who reported frequent use of hair straightening products, defined as more than four times in the prior year, were more than twice as likely to develop uterine cancer compared to those who did not use the products.

• Among women who never used hair straighteners, the estimated lifetime risk of developing uterine cancer by age 70 was 1.64%. For frequent users, that figure rose to 4.05% — a statistically significant doubling.

• Importantly, no similar associations were found for other hair products tested, including hair dyes, bleach, highlights, or perms. The association was specific to chemical straighteners and relaxers.

The study's lead author, Dr Alexandra White of the NIEHS, noted: "This doubling rate is concerning. However, it is important to put this information into context; uterine cancer is a relatively rare type of cancer."

That caveat is important. The study does not claim that every woman who uses a relaxer will develop cancer. What it establishes is a statistically meaningful elevated risk.

Also crucial: approximately 60% of participants who reported using straighteners in the prior year identified as Black women. The researchers noted that while the risk increase was not statistically different by race, the real-world health burden is disproportionately borne by Black women because of higher rates and earlier onset of use. Uterine cancer incidence rates have been rising in the United States, and that rise has been most pronounced among Black women.

Additional research from the Black Women's Health Study has separately linked long-term relaxer use to increased uterine fibroid risk, and ongoing investigation is examining connections to ovarian cancer. The scientific picture is still developing, but the foundation is peer-reviewed, longitudinal, and published in elite journals. This is not a social media rumour.

The Legal Framework: How an MDL Works

For readers unfamiliar with U.S. mass tort litigation, a brief primer is useful. When thousands of plaintiffs across the country file similar personal injury lawsuits against the same defendants over the same products, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) can consolidate those cases before a single federal judge for coordinated pre-trial proceedings. This avoids duplicative discovery, inconsistent rulings, and years of delay.

MDL 3060 was formed in February 2023, initially consolidating 44 lawsuits. It has since grown to encompass over 11,000. The MDL process typically moves through several phases: fact discovery, expert discovery, Daubert hearings (where courts evaluate the admissibility of scientific evidence), bellwether trials, and, often, global settlement negotiations influenced by early trial outcomes.

In parallel with the federal MDL, state court proceedings are also underway. Philadelphia has joined states like New York and Georgia in organising state-level hair relaxer litigation, and state proceedings allow a broader range of claims, including uterine fibroids requiring hysterectomy, which the federal MDL currently restricts to cancer diagnoses.

A Note on Regulatory Response and Its Limits

The litigation has not occurred in a regulatory vacuum. In October 2023, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) proposed a ban on formaldehyde and formaldehyde-releasing chemicals in hair straighteners. However, the FDA missed its April 2024 implementation deadline, and as of this writing, no federal ban is in place. California has moved further, banning formaldehyde in cosmetics as of January 2025 under its Toxic-Free Cosmetics Act. The European Union has long maintained stricter restrictions on formaldehyde in cosmetics.

The gap between scientific evidence, litigation, and regulatory action is itself instructive and offers direct lessons for the African regulatory environment, which we will explore in detail in subsequent articles in this series.

Why This Matters Here

The products at the centre of this litigation are not foreign curiosities to African consumers. They are everyday staples in salons all over the continent. Their manufacturers are active in our market.

The "Great Hair Reckoning" is a story about products that have been sold across the African continent for decades, in a regulatory environment with fewer protections, less scrutiny of product ingredients, and almost no public conversation about these findings.

The NIH Sister Study's observation that the health burden falls disproportionately on women with higher rates of use and earlier onset describes the experience of African women precisely.

This series aims to provide information, accountability, and proactive engagement that allow the African beauty industry to lead, rather than simply inherit the consequences of decisions made elsewhere.

What Comes Next

In the articles that follow, BCLA will examine:

• The specific chemicals under scrutiny and what we know about their presence in products currently sold in Africa;

• The state of cosmetic regulation on the continent, what frameworks exist, what is missing, and how they compare to the standards being litigated in U.S. courts;

• What African consumers, beauty professionals, and brands should know right now; and

• The path toward an African beauty industry that treats consumer safety as a competitive and ethical priority, not an afterthought.

The courtrooms of Chicago are setting precedents that will reverberate through this industry globally. The African beauty market has every reason to be part of this conversation and to be proactive rather than reactive.

This article is part of an ongoing series by Beauty and Cosmetics Law Africa (BCLA). It is intended for informational and educational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. All information is current as of the date of publication.