Hair Relaxer Lawsuit Update

What the lawsuit is about

The hair relaxer lawsuit alleges that chemical hair straighteners and relaxers were linked to uterine cancer, ovarian cancer, endometrial cancer, and related injuries, and that product warnings were inadequate. Federal cases are coordinated in MDL-3060 before Judge Mary M. Rowland in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Defendants dispute liability and causation.

As of October 1, 2026, the JPML reported 12,381 pending actions in MDL-3060. That makes hair relaxer litigation one of the larger active product-liability MDLs. The page below is a general research guide, not a claim determination.

Hair Relaxer Lawsuit update

Active discovery and settlement coordination. CMO 24, filed August 27, 2026, sets discovery deadlines for specifically named second-wave defendants through July 15, 2027. Those deadlines do not apply to every defendant and are not trial dates. CMO 17 appointed a settlement special master but expressly cautions that the appointment does not signal the likelihood or timing of a settlement. Defendants dispute liability and causation.

The JPML, October 1, 2026 lists 12,381 pending actions and 16,828 total historical actions. The figures are docket counts, not settlement eligibility or payment counts.

Settlement status: The court documents reviewed on September 14, 2026, including CMO 24 and CMO 17, do not establish a global settlement or payout schedule. CMO 17 authorizes settlement coordination and expressly warns against inferring timing or likelihood from the appointment.

What changed this month?

• JPML reports 12,381 pending actions and 16,828 historical actions in MDL-3060 as of October 1, 2026. Source
• Pending actions increased by 350 from 11,779 on August 3, 2026. This is a net docket change, not a count of new claims. Source
• CMO 24 sets a second-wave defendant discovery schedule, including September 29 responses and July 15, 2027 oral fact discovery. Source
• The settlement special master appointment does not itself signal an imminent settlement, CMO 17 explains. Source

Case Status Snapshot

• Status: Active / Investigating
• Primary injuries: Uterine cancer, ovarian cancer, endometrial cancer, and related gynecologic injuries alleged in some claims
• MDL: MDL-3060, Northern District of Illinois
• Pending actions: 12,381 as of October 1, 2026
• Settlement status: No global public settlement announced
• Deadline: Varies by state, diagnosis date, discovery facts, and individual history

Who may qualify for a hair relaxer lawsuit?

There is no automatic qualification rule. A claim review may consider the products used, how long and how often they were used, where the products were applied, and whether medical records confirm an injury being evaluated in the litigation.

Product history matters. A reviewer may ask for brand names, approximate years of use, whether use happened at home or in salons, how frequently products were applied, and whether any packaging, photos, receipts, or salon records exist.

What proof may help a hair relaxer claim?

Useful evidence may include product names, salon records, purchase receipts, product photos, family or stylist statements, diagnosis records, pathology reports, oncology records, and treatment records. If the person has died, family members may also need death certificate, probate, or wrongful-death documentation depending on state law.

Because many users do not keep old product receipts, witness statements and consistent product-use history can be important. Medical records should identify the diagnosis and timing clearly.

Hair relaxer lawsuit deadline considerations

Deadlines vary by state. A statute of limitations review may consider diagnosis date, when the person learned or reasonably could have learned about a possible claim, where the person lived or used the product, and whether the case involves personal injury, survival, or wrongful death.

Anyone researching a possible claim should gather the earliest reliable dates: first and last product use, diagnosis date, treatment dates, and any date when a legal claim was first discussed or submitted.

Sources and status notes

• MDL count: Pending-action counts come from the JPML Pending MDL Dockets report dated October 1, 2026.
• Medical research context: NIH reported a Sister Study analysis finding higher uterine-cancer risk among women who reported chemical hair straightener use; the study did not decide legal causation for any individual case.
• Schedule context: Expert and trial milestones (general-causation Daubert briefing completed in 2026; summary-judgment and case-specific motions due November 2026; bellwether trials expected in 2027) come from the MDL-3060 case-management docket in the Northern District of Illinois.
• Review note: This guide summarizes public information and should not be treated as a live docket or legal advice.

Where can I track the Hair Relaxer lawsuit?

Use the mass tort settlement tracker to compare public settlement posture, the deadline tracker for filing-window and key-date notes , and the MDL statistics tracker for federal case counts and court assignments.

What injuries does the Hair Relaxer lawsuit involve?

• Uterine cancer
• Ovarian cancer
• Endometrial cancer
• Uterine fibroids or related gynecologic injuries alleged in some claims

How has the Hair Relaxer lawsuit progressed?

What is the Hair Relaxer settlement status?

No global public settlement has been announced for the federal hair relaxer MDL. The litigation remains active, and any claim review depends on product history, diagnosis records, timing, state law, and proof of use. Defendants dispute liability and causation.

State-by-state guide links