Hair Relaxer Lawsuit Updates
Last updated: August 27, 2026
- Court
- MDL 3060, N.D. Illinois, before Judge Mary M. Rowland
- Pending cases
- 11,779 pending of 16,199 filed, per the JPML report dated August 3, 2026
- Current stage
- General-causation Daubert briefing submitted; ruling awaited
- Latest development
- Discovery stay lifted for the Second Wave defendants on July 28, 2026
No global settlement has been announced and no plaintiff has been paid through the MDL. On the reported schedule, trials are not expected before 2027.
The federal hair relaxer litigation stands at 11,779 pending cases as of the Judicial Panel's August 3, 2026 report, the general-causation Daubert ruling is still awaited, and Judge Rowland lifted the discovery stay over the Second Wave defendants on July 28, 2026. No global settlement has been announced and no plaintiff has been paid through the MDL. This page tracks those procedural developments as public court reporting changes.
On this page
- Hair relaxer MDL 3060 case count and current status
- Recent hair relaxer lawsuit developments
- Has there been a hair relaxer lawsuit settlement?
- Hair relaxer settlement amounts
- What these updates mean for a hair relaxer claim
- What to watch next in the hair relaxer MDL
- When will hair relaxer bellwether trials start?
- How this page fits with our main hair relaxer coverage
Important notice
This page provides general educational information about public developments in the hair relaxer litigation. It does not constitute legal advice or medical advice. Case counts and deadlines come from public court reporting and can change.
Hair Relaxer MDL 3060 Case Count and Current Status
The federal hair relaxer litigation, formally In re: Hair Relaxer Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation (MDL No. 3060), remains one of the largest active multidistrict litigations in the country. It is centralized in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois before Judge Mary M. Rowland. The Judicial Panel's report dated August 3, 2026 placed the docket at 11,779 pending actions out of 16,199 filed since consolidation, making it the fourth-largest active MDL by pending cases. Counts fluctuate month to month as new cases are filed and others are resolved or consolidated.
As of 2026 the litigation has moved well past its early stages and is deep into discovery and bellwether preparation. The court held a "Science Day" in January 2026, an educational session where the parties present the underlying science to the judge, and general-causation expert discovery has been a central focus heading through the year. The broader issues continue to center on product design, warnings, chemical exposure allegations, and scientific causation questions, namely whether manufacturers adequately informed consumers about alleged risks tied to repeated use. For the science the court is weighing, see The Hair Relaxer Cancer Studies, Explained, and for the underlying causation question see Does Hair Relaxer Cause Cancer?
Hair relaxer claims are still being filed. If you used hair relaxer products and were later diagnosed with uterine, endometrial, or ovarian cancer, you may qualify for a free case review. Fibroid-related claims are generally handled differently; see Hair Relaxers and Fibroids.
Check My EligibilityRecent Hair Relaxer Lawsuit Developments
The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation's report dated August 3, 2026 lists 11,779 actions pending in MDL 3060, against 16,199 filed since the litigation was consolidated in February 2023. The docket declined by roughly a hundred cases from the prior month's report, reflecting resolutions and dismissals alongside continued new filings. It remains the fourth-largest active MDL in the federal system by pending actions.
On July 28, 2026, Judge Rowland declined to extend the discovery stay that had shielded the group of defendants known as the Second Wave since December 2025. Those defendants asked for more time while confidential settlement discussions continued; plaintiffs opposed another pause, and the court told the parties it was time to litigate. The Second Wave defendants must now begin producing documents, respond to written discovery, and take part in the ordinary discovery process, and the parties were directed to propose a discovery schedule before the August 20, 2026 status conference. No global settlement has been announced, and no plaintiff has received a payment through the MDL.
The MDL stood at 11,526 pending cases as of the Judicial Panel's May 1, 2026 report. General-causation expert discovery closed March 2, and Daubert briefing on the causation experts — due April 1 under the court's schedule — has been submitted, putting the admissibility ruling that gates the 2027 bellwether track squarely in front of Judge Rowland. Depositions of the 32-case bellwether pool plaintiffs are substantially complete, while the parties dispute whether corporate witnesses will sit for depositions, with defendants offering written stipulations on marketing, warnings, and labeling instead. A court-appointed special master continues coordinating settlement discussions across the MDL and parallel state proceedings in Illinois, Philadelphia, Georgia, and New York. No global settlement has been announced.
Public court reporting has outlined a detailed pretrial schedule for 2026, with case-specific fact discovery for bellwether cases closing in the spring, plaintiff and defense expert reports exchanged through the summer, expert discovery closing in the fall, and a November 16, 2026 deadline for summary judgment and non-general-causation Daubert motions. On this schedule, trials are generally not expected until 2027.
The court held Science Day in January 2026, and general-causation expert discovery was a central focus. A bellwether discovery pool of roughly three dozen cases has continued to move through case-specific work, with one replacement selected after an earlier bellwether plaintiff was dismissed.
Judge Rowland denied motions to dismiss filed by several defendants, including John Paul Mitchell Systems, Wella Operations US LLC, and Advanced Beauty, Inc., keeping those companies in the litigation. The court also advanced its bellwether plan, with parties identifying and exchanging initial bellwether discovery cases.
The MDL continued to grow into one of the largest active product liability proceedings in federal court. Important rulings addressed issues such as the consolidated class action complaint, fee structure, and whether major parts of the litigation could continue moving forward.
Has There Been a Hair Relaxer Lawsuit Settlement?
No. As of August 2026 there is no global hair relaxer settlement, no settlement fund, and no plaintiff has received a payment through MDL 3060. A court-appointed special master continues to coordinate settlement discussions across the MDL and the parallel state proceedings in Illinois, Philadelphia, Georgia, and New York, but those discussions have not produced an announced resolution.
The clearest public signal on where the talks stand came on July 28, 2026, when Judge Rowland declined to extend the discovery stay that had shielded the Second Wave defendants since December 2025. Those defendants had asked for more time while confidential settlement discussions continued. The court returned them to ordinary discovery instead, which means the litigation is moving forward rather than pausing for a deal.
Hair Relaxer Settlement Amounts
Because no settlement exists, there are no hair relaxer settlement amounts, no settlement matrix, and no per-plaintiff payout figures from this litigation. Dollar figures that appear in coverage of this case are estimates or comparisons drawn from other mass torts, not numbers any court has approved here. In an MDL, settlement values generally are not established until after the general-causation rulings and bellwether trials, and on the reported schedule trials are not expected before 2027.
What These Updates Mean for a Hair Relaxer Claim
In large coordinated proceedings like this one, updates can matter because they show whether the litigation is still expanding, whether major motions are being denied or granted, and whether the case is moving closer to bellwether trials or other turning points.
That does not mean any update predicts the outcome of an individual claim. But readers often follow these developments to understand whether the litigation appears active, whether court deadlines are advancing, and whether the case is entering a more developed phase. It is also worth remembering that procedural progress is separate from the underlying science, which remains a contested question; see Does Hair Relaxer Cause Cancer? for that distinction.
What to Watch Next in the Hair Relaxer MDL
- Growth or slowdown in the overall number of filed cases
- Bellwether discovery progress and any trial scheduling
- Rulings on expert evidence and general-causation issues following Science Day
- The November 16, 2026 summary judgment and Daubert motion deadline
- Whether the Second Wave defendants' return to discovery signals that settlement talks stalled
- Case management orders that affect the pace of the litigation
- Whether and how state-court cases, including fibroid claims, move on their own timelines
When Will Hair Relaxer Bellwether Trials Start?
Bellwether cases are often watched closely because they can help both sides evaluate evidence, expert testimony, trial themes, and overall litigation risk. In many MDLs, those early track cases can influence how the broader proceeding develops and whether settlement discussions follow.
The most common question about this litigation is whether it is still in early development, moving into a more mature stage, or gaining momentum after major rulings. Right now, the answer turns on general causation and expert discovery. That phase is particularly important in this MDL because the strength of the scientific evidence is central to how these claims may ultimately be resolved. For background on that evidence, see The Hair Relaxer Cancer Studies, Explained.
How This Page Fits With Our Main Hair Relaxer Coverage
The main Hair Relaxer Cancer Lawsuit page explains the broader allegations, products, health concerns, and claim categories commonly discussed in this litigation. Companion pages cover the science and health questions in plain English: Does Hair Relaxer Cause Cancer?; The Hair Relaxer Cancer Studies, Explained; Hair Relaxers and Fibroids; and Are Hair Relaxers Safe?
This page is narrower. It focuses on procedural developments and public case updates rather than the broader educational overview.
Related Lawsuit Topics
Hair Relaxer Cancer Lawsuit
Read the broader overview of hair relaxer allegations, product history issues, and health concerns discussed in these claims.
Does Hair Relaxer Cause Cancer?
What the research does and does not say about chemical hair relaxers and cancer, in plain English.
The Hair Relaxer Cancer Studies
The 2022 NIH Sister Study and related research that form the scientific backdrop to this litigation.
Hair Relaxers and Fibroids
A separate condition from the cancers at the center of the MDL, and how fibroid claims are generally handled differently.
Are Hair Relaxers Safe?
The reported risks, the chemicals that have drawn scrutiny, and how to think about personal risk.
Mass Torts
Understand how large coordinated proceedings work when many similar claims are handled together.
Find Out If You May Have a Case
If you've been diagnosed with uterine cancer, endometrial cancer, or ovarian cancer after long-term use of chemical hair relaxers, you can request a free, no-obligation case review on Lawsuit Center. Fibroid and other reproductive-condition claims are generally handled differently; a review can help explain how a specific situation may fit.
Educational purposes only. Submitting a case review request does not create an attorney-client relationship.
