If you are reading this after a diagnosis, we want to say something important before anything else. You did not do this to yourself.

Chemical relaxers sat on open drugstore shelves for decades, carrying no warning about reproductive cancer risk. Their formulations were, and largely still are, proprietary, which means neither you nor your stylist could have read a label and understood what was being applied to your scalp. And the pressure to use them was real, coming from workplaces and schools, and beginning for many women in childhood, long before anyone asked their opinion. A woman who relaxed her hair for thirty years did not make a careless choice. She made the choice available to her.

What follows explains what the research actually found, what is in these products, why federal regulators have not acted, and where the litigation genuinely stands. Reading this commits you to nothing.

What the Research Actually Found

Two large studies form the scientific backbone of this litigation. The Sister Study, published in 2022 by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, followed 33,947 women for nearly eleven years, during which 378 uterine cancers were diagnosed. Women who used chemical straighteners more than four times in the previous year were more than twice as likely to develop uterine cancer as women who never used them, with no similar association found for hair dyes, bleach, or perms. Roughly 60 percent of frequent users in the study identified as Black, though the study did not find the underlying relationship differed by race; the reason it matters more for Black women is prevalence and age of first use.

The Black Women’s Health Study, published in 2023 by Boston University researchers, followed 44,798 Black women from 1997 through 2019, during which 347 uterine cancers were diagnosed. Women using relaxers more than twice a year, or for longer than five years, had a greater than 50 percent increased risk compared with infrequent or non-users, an association that was statistically significant among postmenopausal women. Earlier research has also linked relaxer use to uterine fibroids, earlier puberty, and infertility.

Reading the Numbers Honestly

Relative risk is not absolute risk. The Sister Study estimated that roughly 1.64 percent of never-users would develop uterine cancer by age 70, compared with about 4.05 percent of frequent users. That difference is real, but it is not the same as saying most women who used relaxers will develop cancer. Most will not.

These are also observational studies, meaning they identify patterns rather than prove causation; the Sister Study authors themselves called for replication and noted they did not collect brand-specific data, a gap defendants have pressed hard in litigation. What the evidence does support is two large, independent cohorts pointing the same direction, a biologically plausible mechanism involving endocrine-disrupting chemicals in a cancer already understood to be hormone-driven, and a route of exposure that may be unusually efficient, since relaxers are applied to a scalp the product itself sometimes burns.

What Is Actually in These Products

Relaxers are chemically aggressive by design. Sodium hydroxide, the active agent in lye relaxers, is why chemical burns are common, and damaged skin may absorb chemicals more readily than intact skin. Formaldehyde and formaldehyde-releasing chemicals appear in many formulations and can release gas when heated; the International Agency for Research on Cancer classifies formaldehyde as a known human carcinogen. Phthalates, parabens, and other recognized endocrine disruptors have also been detected in the urine of women who use these products. Because specific formulations are proprietary, potentially harmful substances may be present without appearing on any label a consumer could read. Plaintiffs allege manufacturers knew or should have known about these risks and failed to warn; that allegation has not been tested at trial, and the companies deny it.

A Regulatory Gap That Is Still Open

In 2021, salon workers joined advocacy groups to petition the FDA to ban formaldehyde in hair straightening products. The agency signaled it was considering a ban and placed it on its regulatory agenda. The proposed rule still has not been issued. According to CNN’s reporting in January 2026, the agency’s self-imposed target dates have come and gone repeatedly since October 2023, most recently in December 2025, with no legal consequence for missing them. The FDA has not concluded these products are safe; it simply has not finished the rulemaking process. California’s Toxic-Free Cosmetics Act has separately banned formaldehyde in personal care products sold in that state.

Why This Is a Health Equity Story

Historically, up to 95 percent of adult Black women in the United States reported using chemical relaxers at some point, with 84 percent reporting current or past use in a cohort surveyed between 2014 and 2022. Use commonly begins in childhood, meaning cumulative exposure across an entire reproductive lifetime. At the same time, uterine cancer incidence has been rising fastest among Black women, who have higher rates of aggressive subtypes and are nearly twice as likely to die from the disease compared with non-Hispanic white women. The Boston University researchers connected these findings to policy rather than personal choice, pointing to safer alternatives, stricter cosmetic regulation, and anti-discrimination measures such as the CROWN Act. This is not a story about what individual women should have done differently. It is a story about which consumers a regulatory system protects promptly, and which consumers wait.

Understanding the Hair Relaxer MDL

Multidistrict litigation, or MDL, is a procedural tool that groups similar lawsuits before a single federal judge for pretrial work, so discovery and expert testimony happen once rather than in thousands of separate courts. It is not a class action; each woman keeps her own case, facts, and damages. The relevant proceeding, In re Hair Relaxer Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation (MDL 3060), sits before Judge Mary M. Rowland in the Northern District of Illinois. As of July 2026, roughly 11,900 cases were pending, up from about 8,200 two years earlier. Defendants include L’Oréal USA, Revlon, Strength of Nature, SoftSheen-Carson, and Namaste Laboratories, among others.

Where the Litigation Actually Stands

Judge Rowland has allowed core claims, including negligence, design defect, and failure to warn, to move forward, rejecting the manufacturers’ preemption argument at the pleading stage. A pool of roughly 32 bellwether cases is in discovery, with a smaller group selected for trial first, expected in 2027; these test cases will not resolve anyone else’s claim directly, but their outcomes tend to shape the rest. Expert-witness challenges from both sides are pending and could significantly affect the litigation’s trajectory. A special master, Ellen K. Reisman, was appointed in 2025 to oversee settlement discussions. There have been no settlements and no verdicts to date, so any figure quoted online is a guess. Parallel state court cases are also proceeding in Pennsylvania, Georgia, New York, and Illinois.

Who the Federal Litigation Covers, and Who It Does Not

The federal bellwether program is limited to claims involving uterine, endometrial, or ovarian cancer; claims based on fibroids or endometriosis alone are not being carried forward there, so a website claiming otherwise is not accurate. That does not mean those claims lack value. In June 2025, the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas established a coordinated mass tort program that has accepted fibroid-related claims the federal program excludes. And on October 15, 2025, the Supreme Court of Georgia held in Burroughs v. L’Oréal USA, Inc. that the state’s ten-year statute of repose runs from each individual product purchase rather than a consumer’s first-ever purchase, reinstating a fibroid-based claim involving decades of product use. A woman with a cancer diagnosis and a woman with a fibroid hysterectomy may both have viable claims, but they may need to be filed in different places, a conversation worth having before anything is filed.

What Documentation Helps, and Time Limits

• Pathology reports and the date of diagnosis
• Surgical records, including hysterectomy or myomectomy records
• Brand names of products used, and an approximate timeline of use
• Salon receipts, appointment records, or a stylist who can confirm long-term use
• Any surviving packaging, photographs, or purchase records

Brand identification is genuinely difficult, since exposure depends on memory rather than pharmacy records. Not remembering every product does not automatically end a claim. Deadlines also vary substantially by state, some measured from diagnosis and others from when a woman reasonably should have connected her diagnosis to the product, so timing is worth asking about early rather than assuming.

How Constant Legal Group Approaches These Cases

Constant Legal Group (CLG) handles mass tort litigation nationally alongside our institutional abuse practice, representing people harmed by pharmaceutical products, medical devices, and toxic exposures. In hair relaxer cases, our work involves reconstructing decades of product use, organizing medical and pathology records, and assessing which forum, federal or state, fits a particular woman’s diagnosis and history. We are candid that the science here is meaningful and contested, and we handle these matters on a contingency basis, so there is no upfront cost.

We Are Here to Hear Your Story

If you used chemical hair relaxers and were diagnosed with uterine, endometrial, or ovarian cancer, or underwent surgery for uterine fibroids, we are here to hear your story. Constant Legal Group offers free, confidential consultations, with no obligation and no upfront cost. We only get paid if we recover compensation for you.