Hair Relaxer Lawsuit Updates

By David Meldofsky, California-licensed attorney · Founder, Lawsuit Informer

Last updated: October 27, 2026

This case is one of 16 we track. See where each one stands →

On October 22, 2026, Judge Mary Rowland ruled that two of the plaintiffs' scientists may tell a jury that hair relaxers can cause uterine and ovarian cancer. The companies had asked her to keep those experts out. Her ruling covers two of the ten experts the companies challenged, and the rest are still waiting on a decision.

The ruling clears the biggest hurdle between 12,381 federal cases and a trial. The first trial is set for September 7, 2027, and the court has named the five cases that will go first. No settlement has been announced and nobody has been paid. This page follows those developments as the court record changes.

Hair Relaxer MDL 3060 Case Count and Current Status

The federal hair relaxer cases are grouped together before one judge in Illinois, Judge Mary M. Rowland, in what the courts call MDL 3060. As of October 1, 2026 there were 12,381 still pending, up from 12,129 in September and 11,779 in August. That makes it the fourth-largest group of federal cases of its kind. Counts move month to month as new cases are filed and others are closed or combined.

The companies being sued are the makers and sellers of the relaxer brands. The order that created the MDL in February 2023 named nine company groups. The defense side has grown well past that since. More than twenty companies appear on current court filings, including:

• L’Oréal USA and L’Oréal USA Products
• SoftSheen-Carson
• Revlon Consumer Products, Revlon Group Holdings and Revlon Inc.
• Strength of Nature and Strength of Nature Global
• Namasté Laboratories
• Godrej SON Holdings
• House of Cheatham and Beauty Bell Enterprises
• AFAM Concept, Avlon Industries, Luster Products and McBride Research Laboratories
• Dudley Beauty, Murray’s Worldwide, RNA Corporation and John Paul Mitchell Systems
• Sally Beauty Supply, a retailer rather than a maker

Revlon is in bankruptcy. The court has kept the cases against it moving under orders from the bankruptcy court.

These cases are no longer new. Both sides have spent 2026 gathering evidence and preparing the first cases for trial. In January 2026 the court held a "Science Day," a session where each side walked the judge through the research. Most of the year since went to the fight over which scientists each side may put in front of a jury. On October 22 the judge gave her first answer.

The claims themselves come down to a few questions. Were the products designed safely. Did the labels warn about what the chemicals could do. Does frequent use over years raise the risk of cancer. Did the companies tell buyers what the research showed.

The research at the center of it is a 2022 analysis from the National Institutes of Health Sister Study. Of women who never used straighteners, an estimated 1.64% would develop uterine cancer by age 70. Among frequent users the estimate was 4.05%, roughly two and a half times as often. Those are the numbers both sides are fighting over. 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?

What has happened recently

• October 22, 2026, the judge let two of the plaintiffs' cancer experts testify. The companies had asked Judge Rowland to exclude the ten scientists the plaintiffs rely on to show that relaxers can cause cancer. She refused to exclude Dr. Cote, an epidemiologist who concluded that relaxers can cause uterine and ovarian cancer. She allowed most of what Mr. Atwood, a toxicologist, says about how the chemicals could do that, and cut four parts of his testimony. She wrote that a second order will cover the other eight experts. What the ruling means.
• October 22, 2026, the court named the five cases that go to trial first. Both sides agreed on them, and the judge entered the list the same day as the expert ruling. The five are Bridget Boatwright, Carrie Chattman, Charlene Fennell, Gloria Ford and Karla Smith. The Ford case is the only ovarian cancer case among them. It will be tried third, fourth or fifth, on a delayed schedule, and the judge expects it to go last. The first of those trials is set for September 7, 2027.
• October 1, 2026, the case count reached 12,381. The federal panel that tracks these cases reported 12,381 still pending, up from 12,129 in September and 11,779 in August. New filings have outpaced the cases being closed for three months running.
• September 10, 2026, Arizona sued L'Oréal. The state's attorney general says L'Oréal and SoftSheen-Carson sold relaxers such as Dark & Lovely, Optimum and Mizani without warning buyers about cancer research. The state wants cancer warnings on the products, fines, and money for Arizona consumers. L'Oréal says the case has no merit. More on the Arizona case.
• July 24, 2026, a pause for one group of companies ended. The judge refused to extend a pause that had protected a group of defendants since December 2025. They had asked for more time while private settlement talks continued. The plaintiffs objected, and the court said it was time to get on with the case. Those companies now have to hand over documents and take part in the ordinary process.

What the judge's expert ruling means

In a case like this, the judge decides before trial which scientists a jury is allowed to hear. If the plaintiffs' experts are kept out, the plaintiffs have no way to prove that relaxers cause cancer, and the cases end. That is why both sides spent most of 2026 on this fight, and why the ruling matters more than anything else on this page.

The companies asked the judge to exclude all ten of the plaintiffs' general causation experts. General causation means whether the products can cause these cancers at all, as opposed to whether they caused one woman's cancer. The companies argued that the experts leaned on weak epidemiology, on exposure data that does not apply to real use, and on unproven theories about hormone-disrupting chemicals.

On October 22, 2026, Judge Rowland answered the companies' arguments that applied to all ten experts, and ruled on two of them by name. The 65-page opinion is docket entry 2079. She wrote that a second order will decide the challenges to the other eight.

The judge rejected the companies' across-the-board arguments. The plaintiffs' experts may treat a relaxer as a mixture and reason from groups of chemicals that act the same way. They do not have to name the one ingredient, or the exact recipe, that causes the harm.

The judge also refused to throw out the three studies at the center of the case. She said the companies' complaints about those studies are for a jury to weigh. Each expert still has to show a reliable method for every step of their reasoning.

Dr. Cote, the plaintiffs' epidemiologist, may testify in full. She concluded that chemical hair relaxers, taken as a whole product, can cause uterine and ovarian cancer. The judge found her method reliable and left the companies' disagreements with her conclusions for cross-examination.

Mr. Atwood, a toxicologist, may explain how the chemicals in relaxers could cause these cancers. He may describe absorption through the scalp, the combined effect of hormone-disrupting chemicals, and effects at low doses.

The judge cut four parts of his testimony. He may not give his own opinion that relaxers cause cancer. He may not rely on breathing in the chemicals as a separate route of exposure. He may not use formaldehyde or other known carcinogens as part of his mixture theory, because his report did not tie them to these cancers. He may not opine on broad ingredient groups like fragrances and UV filters.

The ruling does not decide any woman's case. It means a jury will be allowed to hear the plaintiffs' core science. The judge has not yet ruled on the other eight experts the companies challenged, or on the companies' own experts. Co-lead counsel for the plaintiffs, DiCello Levitt, announced the ruling on October 26. The companies have not commented publicly. The next court date is a discovery status conference before Magistrate Judge Beth Jantz on October 29, 2026, held by video.

Arizona's lawsuit against L'Oréal

On September 10, 2026, Arizona's attorney general, Kris Mayes, sued L'Oréal and its hair care company SoftSheen-Carson in state court in Phoenix. The state says the companies sold chemical relaxers to Black women and girls in Arizona for decades while calling them safe and gentle. It says they never told buyers about research linking frequent relaxer use to uterine and ovarian cancer.

The products named include Dark & Lovely, Optimum and Mizani. The state's complaint also lists Bantu, Care Free Curl, Look of Radiance, Roots of Nature and Ultra Precise. It points to Dark & Lovely Beautiful Beginnings as a line sold for children. You can read the state's complaint (PDF, 25 pages).

Arizona is asking the court for three things:

• An order stopping sales of these relaxers in Arizona unless they carry cancer warnings.
• Fines under Arizona's consumer fraud law, which allows up to $10,000 for each violation.
• Repayment to Arizona consumers.

L'Oréal told Consumer Reports that its products are safe and that the lawsuit has no legal or scientific merit. The company says the study behind the case called for more research and did not find that relaxers cause cancer. Reuters reported that Arizona is the first state to sue over hair relaxer cancer risk.

What the Arizona case means for women with cancer

Arizona brought this case as the state, on behalf of its residents as a whole. It is about how the products were sold and labeled in Arizona. Women diagnosed with cancer bring their own cases, for their own diagnosis and their own losses. Those cases continue in federal court and in several state courts.

Whether your own history supports a case depends on your diagnosis, the products you used, and when you used them. A free case review can look at those facts.

A separate track for women who have not been diagnosed

Most of this page is about women who were diagnosed with cancer. There is a second request in front of the judge that works differently.

Plaintiffs have asked the court to certify medical monitoring classes. A medical monitoring claim asks a company to pay for regular screening for people who were exposed to something and face a raised risk, before any diagnosis. The companies oppose it, and they have also asked the judge to throw out the doctors the plaintiffs rely on to support it. Briefing finished in early September 2026 and the judge has not ruled.

Whether this track goes anywhere is unsettled, and it is separate from an individual claim for a cancer diagnosis. Nothing about it has been decided.

Has there been a settlement?

No. There is no settlement, no fund, and nobody has been paid through this litigation.

A court-appointed official is still coordinating settlement talks across the federal cases and the state cases in Illinois, Philadelphia, Georgia and New York. Those talks have not produced anything announced.

The clearest public signal came on July 24, 2026, when the judge refused to extend the pause protecting one group of companies. They had asked for more time while private talks continued. The court put them back into the ordinary process instead, which means the case is moving forward rather than waiting on a deal.

Be careful with settlement figures

Because there is no settlement, there are no hair relaxer settlement amounts and no per-person payout figures. Any dollar figure you see quoted for this case is an estimate, or a comparison borrowed from a different lawsuit. No court has approved a number here.

In cases like this, values are usually not set until after the judge finishes ruling on the science and the first test trials happen. The judge has ruled on two experts so far. The first trial is set for September 7, 2027.

What these updates mean for a claim

Updates like these show whether a case is still growing, whether big rulings are going one way or the other, and whether trials are getting closer. What they do not do is predict what happens to any individual claim.

It is also worth separating two things. The case moving through court is one question. Whether the science shows hair relaxers cause cancer is a different one, and it is still contested. See Does Hair Relaxer Cause Cancer? for that.

What to watch next

The court reset this schedule in late August 2026, and three dates now matter more than the rest. Expert evidence-gathering in the five test cases closes on December 21, 2026. The motions that could narrow or end parts of the case are due January 11, 2027, with briefing on them finishing February 24, 2027. Those rulings will shape the litigation more than anything else on this list.

• How the judge rules on the other eight plaintiffs' experts, and on the companies' experts.
• Whether the companies ask the judge to reconsider the October 22 ruling, or ask the appeals court to review it now.
• The discovery status conference on October 29, 2026, the first court date after the ruling.
• Whether the number of filed cases keeps growing or starts to fall.
• Whether the September 7, 2027 trial date holds or moves.
• Whether the October ruling restarts settlement talks. The companies that lost their pause in July had been talking privately.
• Whether the FDA finishes its formaldehyde rule. The agency proposed restricting formaldehyde in hair-smoothing and straightening products in 2023 and has missed its own deadlines, most recently in January 2026. The products stay on shelves while that sits unfinished.
• How L'Oréal answers Arizona's lawsuit, and whether other states bring their own.
• Whether state court cases, including fibroid claims, move on their own schedule.

When will the first trials start?

Courts handling thousands of similar cases pick a few to try first. Lawyers call them bellwether trials, and both sides watch them to work out what the evidence is worth and how juries react.

The first trial is set for September 7, 2027. The court has built its 2027 calendar around that date, with case management conferences scheduled every month from January through August.

The pool of cases has been narrowed three times. Thirty-two cases went into the first round of evidence-gathering, which closed on March 18, 2026. On April 2, 2026 the judge cut that group to ten. The court then ordered the two sides to propose how to cut the ten to five by October 21, 2026.

On October 22 the judge entered their agreed list: the cases of Bridget Boatwright, Carrie Chattman, Charlene Fennell, Gloria Ford and Karla Smith. Four are uterine cancer cases. The Ford case is the one ovarian cancer case, and it runs on a delayed schedule behind the other four.

A date on the calendar is not a promise. Trial dates in cases this size move. The judge has ruled that two of the plaintiffs' experts may testify, and still has to rule on the rest. Those rulings could reshape what a trial looks like.

For background on the research the court is weighing, 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. Four companion pages cover the science and health questions in plain English. Does Hair Relaxer Cause Cancer? takes the causation question directly. The Hair Relaxer Cancer Studies, Explained walks through the research. Hair Relaxers and Fibroids covers the separate fibroid claims. Are Hair Relaxers Safe? looks at the products themselves.

This page is narrower. It focuses on procedural developments and public case updates rather than the broader educational overview.

Related Lawsuit Topics

About the Author

David Meldofsky is a California-licensed attorney and the founder of Lawsuit Informer, an educational platform focused on helping people understand lawsuits, consumer safety issues, and legal rights related to defective products and toxic exposures.

Learn more about our Editorial Policy or Contact us.

Last Updated: October 27, 2026

Educational information only. Not legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is formed.