Hair Relaxer

The MDL judge denied dismissal requests from John Paul Mitchell Systems, Wella, and Advanced Beauty in the ongoing hair relaxer cancer lawsuits, ensuring the cases remain in the MDL. The defendants argued that the master complaint did not specifically mention their products. However, Judge Rowland clarified that the master and short-form complaints collectively serve as a single operative complaint. As a result, the companies are required to address allegations from both.

Some of the most compelling hair relaxer lawsuits involve professional hairstylists and cosmetologists. Unlike occasional users who may have only applied these products a few times a year—yet still developed cancer—stylists have been in constant contact with these chemicals for years, often decades.

Their prolonged and repeated exposure, through direct handling, inhalation, and skin absorption, significantly increases their risk of hormone-related cancers such as uterine, breast, and ovarian cancer. From a legal standpoint, this consistent exposure strengthens the causal link between relaxers and these serious health conditions, making these claims particularly strong in multidistrict litigation.

In addition to the devastating health consequences, salon professionals face major financial setbacks due to their exposure. Many spent years building their careers in the beauty industry, only to be diagnosed with life-altering illnesses that make it impossible to continue working.

While a typical consumer can choose to stop using hair relaxers, professionals do not have that option without abandoning their livelihoods. As a result, their economic damages are substantial. Many former stylists have lost their entire source of income, undergone aggressive cancer treatments, and faced permanent health challenges—all because manufacturers failed to disclose the dangers of prolonged exposure to these hazardous chemicals.

Discussions surrounding the ongoing Hair Relaxer MDL are progressing as both plaintiffs and defendants move closer toward potential settlement talks.

Plaintiffs’ attorneys are maintaining a cautious stance, though all parties are eager to see these cases resolved and ensure victims receive some form of justice. There is a growing interest among plaintiffs to discuss the selection of a mediator. However, plaintiffs are resisting the defendants’ request to establish a formal mediation process at this early stage.

The defense attorneys contend that meaningful settlement discussions cannot commence until plaintiffs provide a comprehensive theory of liability for each defendant’s role in the alleged injuries. They have suggested a 45-day window for exchanging case theories after a mediator is chosen. But ultimately, the main goal is clear: we need a mediator and must first agree on the financial terms before considering a bellwether trial. It’s that straightforward.

Despite procedural disagreements, both sides seem to agree on the March 20, 2025, deadline for selecting a mediator. If successful, this could pave the way for early-stage settlement talks in what is anticipated to be a complex and high-stakes resolution.

As settlement negotiations continue to unfold, the upcoming weeks will be crucial in determining whether talks gain real momentum, or if extended litigation—including bellwether trials—becomes unavoidable. The next significant update is expected after the March 27, 2025, Case Management Conference.

Is there optimism for a hair relaxer settlement in the coming months? Not yet. While we would love to be proven wrong, history suggests that it’s difficult to reach a deal until we get closer to the trial date. Of course, we’d love to be wrong.

On Friday, Judge Rowland presented a detailed schedule for the bellwether trials in the hair relaxer MDL:

Key Dates & Events:

• April 30, 2025: Both parties must identify and exchange the 20 initial bellwether discovery cases.
• May 9, 2025: A joint status report must be filed, identifying the initial bellwether discovery cases.
• June 9, 2025: Each defendant must submit their answer and affirmative defenses to the selected initial bellwether discovery cases.
• September 30, 2025: Conclusion of oral fact discovery within the MDL.
• October 31, 2025: Plaintiffs must provide their general causation expert reports.
• December 1, 2025: Defendants must provide their general causation expert reports.
• February 16, 2026: Close of case-specific fact discovery. Parties must file position papers regarding trial selection cases.
• March 2, 2026: Completion of general causation expert discovery. The court will decide on the selection of the bellwether trial cases.
• April 1, 2026: Deadline for filing Daubert motions concerning general causation.
• May 1, 2026: Final deadline for additional case-specific fact discovery for bellwether trial cases.
• June 30, 2026: Plaintiffs must disclose case-specific and all other expert reports.
• August 3, 2026: Defendants must disclose case-specific and all other expert reports.
• October 16, 2026: Close of all case-specific and other expert discovery.
• November 16, 2026: Deadline for filing summary judgment motions and non-general causation Daubert motions.
• January 6, 2027: Replies in support of summary judgment motions must be submitted.

Thus, the MDL trial is expected to take place no sooner than 2027. While this delay may be frustrating for victims seeking justice, it’s likely that there will be trials in state courts before this timeline, which could prompt major settlements. A significant verdict in state court might push defendants like L’Oréal to settle more cases.

Additional Court Directives:

• Bellwether Trials: Initially, the parties agreed to select 16 cases for bellwether discovery, with five set for trial. However, the judge believes this number is too low and has increased the total to 40 discovery cases, with up to 12 potentially going to trial.

• Eligibility Criteria: The judge’s order defines “Eligible Cases” as those where plaintiffs have filed and served Short Form Complaints by February 1, 2024. Furthermore, the bellwether pool will be limited to cases involving uterine, endometrial, or ovarian cancer, reducing the pool to about 5,230 cases.

• Selection Process: Each party must select 20 cases for bellwether discovery, with a firm deadline set for April 30, 2025. No extensions will be permitted.

• General Causation Discovery: The court has approved a parallel approach, allowing general causation expert discovery to proceed alongside case-specific discovery.

• Substitution of Settled Cases: If any bellwether discovery case settles before trial selection, the plaintiffs can unilaterally replace the case with another. This is a common practice in MDL proceedings.

A hearing has been set for January 31, 2025, at 10:30 a.m. (CT) to discuss the selection of bellwether cases.

For transparency, the hearing will be accessible to the public via teleconference. To listen in, dial 650-479-3207 and use Access Code: 1801732451. Please note that participants who are not addressing the hearing should keep their lines muted.

The court conducted a video status hearing to address the plaintiffs’ ongoing concerns regarding Revlon’s responses to interrogatories. Some progress was made during the hearing. Regarding issues with “inconsistent naming conventions” in product references, the plaintiffs are required to submit a list of unclear responses to Revlon by January 29, 2025. Revlon must then either amend its responses or confirm its inability to identify certain products by February 18, 2025. A similar process will be applied to concerns related to ambiguous production dates.

For issues concerning the Bills of Materials spreadsheet and finished product IDs, the parties are expected to meet and discuss these issues in detail, either via video conference or in person, and include any unresolved matters in the joint status report due by February 6, 2025.

The court determined that Revlon is not required to link its document productions directly to its interrogatory responses as a general rule. However, the plaintiffs may address any perceived discrepancies during the depositions of Revlon representatives.

The FDA’s proposal to prohibit the use of formaldehyde in hair straightening products remains uncertain due to an executive order issued during the Trump administration, which paused all federal regulations. While the FDA initially aimed to make a decision on the ban by April 2024, this timeline has since been delayed until September 2024. Formaldehyde and its heat-activated byproducts have been associated with cancer risks, especially among Black women, leading to ongoing advocacy from plaintiffs’ attorneys and victims’ organizations.

Following a significant surge of over 1,000 new cases in October, the hair relaxer multidistrict litigation (MDL) saw a notable slowdown in November, with only 161 new filings—an 85% decrease. The current total of cases in the MDL now stands at 9,649. While the volume of filings within the MDL has decreased, there has been an increase in the number of hair relaxer lawsuits being pursued in state courts.

Additionally, all lawsuits related to fibroids and hysterectomies, which are often associated with the use of hair relaxers, are now being handled outside of the MDL, as plaintiffs continue to seek justice in individual proceedings.

The next status conference for the hair relaxer MDL is scheduled for December 12, 2024, at 9:30 a.m. The magistrate judge emphasized public accessibility, allowing both the public and media to join the hearing via phone. Interested listeners can dial 650-479-3207 and use access code 2308 182 1801 to listen in.

However, the judge reminded attendees that photographing, recording, or rebroadcasting court proceedings is strictly prohibited. Violating these rules could lead to sanctions, including restricted access to future hearings.

In August, the chemical hair relaxer class action MDL saw the addition of 200 new cases. However, September brought a decline, with 98 cases being removed from the MDL, reducing the total number of pending cases to 8,393. This adjustment reflects the ongoing fluctuations in case filings and the legal process surrounding the hair relaxer litigation.