The Hair Relaxer Litigation Wave: Addressing Africa's Regulatory Blind Spot

Image Credit: John Diez

Introduction

In Part I of this series, we examined the scale of the hair relaxer litigation currently proceeding in the United States. More than 11,000 claims have been consolidated in multidistrict litigation (MDL No. 3060) in the Northern District of Illinois, with plaintiffs alleging that long-term use of certain hair relaxer products contributed to the development of cancers and other adverse health outcomes. Several of the world's largest beauty and personal care companies have been named as defendants, and the first bellwether trials are expected to begin in 2027.

The litigation has generated significant attention among regulators, researchers, industry stakeholders, and consumers in North America. At the same time, many of the products and companies at the centre of these proceedings continue to maintain substantial commercial presences across African markets.

This raises an important policy question. As scientific scrutiny, regulatory review, and litigation activity increase in some jurisdictions, what protections exist for consumers in markets where use of these products remains widespread? The answer requires an examination not only of the products themselves, but also of the regulatory environments in which they are sold.

Declining Demand in the United States, Continued Growth in Africa

Recent market data suggests that consumer demand for chemical hair relaxers is evolving differently across regions (Spherical Insights, 2026). In the United States, a combination of factors, including changing beauty preferences, increased acceptance of natural hairstyles, growing consumer awareness of ingredient safety issues, and ongoing litigation, has contributed to a decline in the popularity of traditional chemical relaxers. By contrast, a number of African markets have recorded continued demand for relaxers and related hair-straightening products over the past decade.

Industry forecasts indicate that the Middle East and Africa region now accounts for a significant share of the global hair relaxer market. The global market, estimated at approximately US$751 million in 2025 (Spherical Insights, 2026), is projected to continue growing through the end of the decade, with African markets expected to contribute materially to that growth.

Many of the brands that hold leading positions in African markets are produced by companies named in the U.S. litigation. Products sold under brands such as Dark & Lovely, ORS Olive Oil Relaxer, and TCB Naturals continue to enjoy strong consumer recognition across multiple African jurisdictions. This should not be surprising. Africa has the world's youngest population, one of the fastest rates of urbanisation globally, and a rapidly expanding beauty and personal care sector. For multinational manufacturers, the continent represents an important growth market regardless of developments elsewhere.

The more relevant question is not whether these companies should operate in African markets. Rather, it is whether African regulatory frameworks are evolving quickly enough to respond to emerging scientific evidence and regulatory developments occurring in other parts of the world.

The Regulatory Landscape

African countries are not without cosmetics regulation. Most major markets maintain legal frameworks governing the manufacture, importation, sale, and distribution of cosmetic products.

In Nigeria, the National Agency for Food and Drug Administration and Control (NAFDAC) requires cosmetics to be registered before they can be legally sold and maintains lists of prohibited and restricted ingredients. The agency also issues guidance on labelling, manufacturing practices, and product safety requirements.

In Kenya, oversight responsibilities are shared among several institutions, including the Pharmacy and Poisons Board (PPB) and the Kenya Bureau of Standards (KEBS), which administers conformity assessment requirements for imported products.

South Africa maintains one of the continent's more developed regulatory systems for consumer products, while regional initiatives under the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) are expected to encourage greater harmonisation of product standards over time.

The existence of these frameworks is important. The principal challenge is not the absence of regulation, but the practical difficulties associated with enforcement, market surveillance, ingredient oversight, and regulatory responsiveness.

Three Regulatory Challenges

1. Enforcement Capacity

Regulatory authorities across Africa oversee large and increasingly complex consumer goods markets. Their responsibilities often extend far beyond cosmetics and include pharmaceuticals, food products, medical devices, and other regulated goods.

In many jurisdictions, agencies must perform these functions with limited laboratory capacity, constrained budgets, and relatively small enforcement teams. As a result, regulators face difficult decisions regarding how resources are allocated and which risks receive immediate attention.

This issue becomes particularly important when new scientific findings emerge. Assessing the significance of those findings, reviewing existing standards, conducting risk assessments, and updating regulatory requirements can be resource-intensive processes. Where institutional capacity is limited, the period between the emergence of scientific concerns and the adoption of regulatory safeguards may be longer.

2. Informal Distribution Networks

A second challenge arises from the structure of many African consumer markets.

Hair relaxers and other beauty products are frequently sold through informal distribution channels, including open markets, small independent retailers, unlicensed distributors, and increasingly through social commerce platforms.

These channels play an important role in expanding consumer access to products. At the same time, they can make regulatory oversight more difficult. Products may enter the market without proper registration, ingredient disclosures may be incomplete, and counterfeit or improperly stored products may circulate alongside legitimate goods.

The concerns raised in the U.S. litigation are particularly relevant in this context because they relate to chemical ingredients that consumers cannot easily identify or evaluate independently. Effective oversight, therefore, depends heavily on regulatory review, accurate labelling, and supply chain transparency. Where those protections are weakened, consumers have fewer tools available to make informed purchasing decisions.

3. Diverging Ingredient Standards

Perhaps the most significant challenge is the growing divergence among regulatory approaches across jurisdictions. Over the past decade, regulators in several countries have taken increasingly cautious positions toward certain cosmetic ingredients. Formaldehyde and formaldehyde-releasing substances have faced restrictions or prohibitions in multiple jurisdictions, while regulators in Europe, North America, and elsewhere have expanded scrutiny of endocrine-disrupting chemicals used in consumer products.

The pace of regulatory change has not been uniform globally. In many African jurisdictions, ingredient-specific restrictions have not always developed at the same rate as those adopted in Europe, North America, or certain Latin American markets.

This does not necessarily mean that products sold in Africa are unsafe or unlawful. However, it does mean that consumers may be purchasing products that are subject to different regulatory standards than equivalent products sold elsewhere.

Nigeria's decision to issue warnings concerning products containing formaldehyde illustrates this point. Such warnings are an important consumer protection tool, but they do not necessarily result in reformulation, product withdrawal, or changes to underlying regulatory requirements.

The Consequences of Regulatory Lag

The concept of regulatory lag is well established. Scientific evidence often develops faster than regulatory systems can respond, particularly where emerging risks remain contested or incomplete.

Importantly, regulatory lag is not unique to Africa. The United States has itself faced criticism regarding the pace of regulatory action in relation to cosmetic ingredient safety. Similar debates have occurred across Europe, Canada, and other jurisdictions.

The issue is therefore not whether regulatory lag exists, but how its effects differ across markets.

Where enforcement resources are limited, informal markets are significant, and access to consumer information is uneven, delays in regulatory response may have a greater practical impact. Consumers may continue using products that are simultaneously the subject of litigation, scientific debate, or regulatory review elsewhere without being fully aware of those developments.

For policymakers, this presents a difficult challenge. Regulatory systems must balance consumer protection objectives against resource constraints, competing public priorities, and the need to maintain access to affordable consumer products.

What Comes Next

The ongoing hair relaxer litigation is unlikely, on its own, to determine the future of cosmetics regulation in Africa. Litigation outcomes are jurisdiction-specific, and findings in U.S. courts will not automatically alter African regulatory requirements.

Nevertheless, the litigation has drawn attention to broader questions regarding ingredient safety, regulatory responsiveness, and consumer awareness. Those questions are directly relevant to African markets regardless of how the underlying lawsuits are ultimately resolved. The issues raised by the litigation may have emerged in the United States, but the policy questions they present are increasingly global.

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