- More than 8,200 suits pending in multidistrict proceeding
- Claims not preempted, plaintiffs’ allegations sufficient
Women who link uterine cancer to use of hair relaxer products can pursue nearly all of their claims against
The products, marketed mainly to Black women, contain chemicals such as phthalates, which are associated with an increased risk of cancer, the plaintiffs say.
More than 8,200 suits are pending in a combined proceeding before Judge Mary M. Rowland of the US District Court for the Northern District of Chicago, who denied most of the defendants’ motion for dismissal Monday.
The plaintiffs allege that L’Oréal and others acted negligently in marketing the hair relaxers, that the products contained toxins that made them defective, and that the companies failed to warn of serious health risks they knew of or should have known about.
Substances in the relaxers disrupt the endocrine system, causing uterine, breast, and ovarian cancers, uterine fibroids, and other harm, the plaintiffs say.
The federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act doesn’t preempt the claims, Rowland said.
The plaintiffs offered enough detail to support their negligence, design defect and warning-based product liability claims, the court said. Their warranty claims also advanced.
Rowland also said the plaintiffs can pursue punitive damages.
However, she dismissed some fraud-based misrepresentation claims, saying the plaintiffs didn’t provide enough detail to satisfy the heightened pleading requirements for those claims.
The court dismissed claims against Dabur International Ltd., saying it lacks personal jurisdiction over the Dubai company.
The litigation followed the October 2022 publication of a study led by the National Institutes of Health, which found that women who frequently used chemical hair straightening or hair relaxer products faced a heightened risk of uterine cancer.
Ben Crump Law, Douglas & London PC, Motley Rice LLC, DiCello Levitt LLC, and others represent the plaintiffs. Ellis George Cipollone O’Brien Annaguey LLP represents L’Oréal, SoftSheen-Carson LLC, and related companies.
The case is In re Hair Relaxer Mktg., Sales Prac. & Prods. Liab. Litig., N.D. Ill., No. 1:23-cv-00818, 11/13/23.
To contact the reporter on this story:
To contact the editor responsible for this story:
Learn more about Bloomberg Law or Log In to keep reading:
See Breaking News in Context
Bloomberg Law provides trusted coverage of current events enhanced with legal analysis.
Already a subscriber?
Log in to keep reading or access research tools and resources.