Hair Relaxer Litigation Update: MDL No. 3060 Surpasses 11,500 Cases as Bellwether Preparations Continue
5/11/2026
As of May 2026, the federal hair relaxer litigation continues to move through a critical phase in the Northern District of Illinois. The litigation, formally known as in re: Hair Relaxer Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 3060, is pending before Judge Mary M. Rowland and has grown to 11,526 pending actions as of May 1, 2026, Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation report. (jpml.uscourts.gov)
Plaintiffs allege that long-term use of chemical hair relaxers and straighteners exposed them to harmful chemicals, including formaldehyde and other endocrine-disrupting substances, increasing the risk of uterine cancer, ovarian cancer, endometrial cancer, and related reproductive injuries. The lawsuits target several manufacturers and brands, alleging that companies failed to adequately warn consumers about potential health risks.
Key Litigation Updates
The MDL has now become one of the largest active product liability proceedings in the federal court system. With more than 11,500 pending cases, law firms involved in the litigation are managing a growing volume of claimant records, product-use histories, medical documentation, and causation-related evidence.
Bellwether trial preparation is also underway. These early trial selections are important because they help assess the strength of the claims, expert testimony, defense arguments, and potential case values. While no global settlement has been officially announced, the outcomes of the bellwether process may influence future settlement discussions.
A major focus in 2026 is the court’s review of scientific evidence. Defendants were expected to challenge expert testimony through Rule 702/Daubert motions, which are designed to evaluate whether plaintiffs’ scientific evidence is reliable and admissible. These challenges are central to the litigation because causation will play a significant role in how the cases proceed. Verus’ prior litigation update noted key Daubert briefing deadlines in April and May 2026. (Verus LLC)
Products and Brands Named in the Litigation
The litigation involves a wide range of hair relaxers and straightening products. Brands referenced in public litigation updates include:
- Dark & Lovely
- Just for Me
- Optimum
- Motions
- Olive Oil Girls
- Soft & Beautiful
- ORS
The products at issue were often marketed to women for long-term or repeated use, making product identification, duration of use, frequency of use, and medical history important components of claimant development.
What Happens Next
The first bellwether trials are currently expected to begin in 2027, rather than 2026. In the meantime, the litigation will continue to focus on expert evidence, discovery, product identification, medical record review, claimant fact sheets, and trial pool development. Public reporting also indicates that no large-scale settlement has been reached at this stage. (Wagstaff & Cartmell)
For plaintiff firms, this phase of the litigation requires more than intake. Firms need organized claimant data, consistent documentation, complete medical records, accurate product-use histories, and strong case management workflows to prepare inventories for discovery, expert review, bellwether selection, and future settlement evaluation.
Why This Matters for Law Firms
As the hair relaxer MDL continues to grow, operational readiness will be critical. High-volume litigation can quickly create pressure around claimant communication, records collection, fact sheet completion, deficiency management, and data consistency.
Law firms handling hair relaxer claims should be prepared to answer key questions:
Are claimant records complete and organized?
Can product-use history be clearly documented?
Are medical records tied to the alleged injury?
Is the inventory ready for discovery deadlines and bellwether review?
Can leadership evaluate case strength across the full portfolio?
Verus Can Help
Verus supports law firms managing complex mass tort litigation with case management, medical record coordination, data organization, claimant engagement, and litigation analytics. As the hair relaxer litigation moves toward bellwether trials, firms need scalable infrastructure to manage inventory with accuracy, consistency, and confidence.
3/24/2026
After the March 5, 2026 status hearing, the focus in MDL 3060 – In re: Hair Relaxer Marketing, Sales Practices and Product Liability Litigation continues to be on the expert discovery that will be allowed in the 32 bellwether cases. Science Day, the hearing during which the parties in the MDL seek to educate the judge on the relevant scientific general causation concepts was held on January 8, 2026. The deadline for the close of general causation expert discovery for the 32 initial bellwether discovery cases was March 2, 2026.
The following are upcoming key dates:
• April 1, 2026: Deadline to file general causation Rule 702 (Daubert) motions to challenge the scientific evidence. These motions are aimed at challenging the scientific reliability and credibility of the expert testimony being offered linking the chemicals in hair relaxers manufactured by the defendants to uterine and ovarian cancers.
• May 1, 2026: Deadline for filing oppositions to any Daubert motions that have been filed
• May 15, 2026: Reply briefs to any filed Daubert motions must be filed.
• March-June 2026: Additional case-specific fact discovery and expert reports are due.
• November 16, 2026: Deadline to file summary judgment and non-general causation Daubert motions.
Judge Rowland is encouraging the parties to come to an agreement on basic issues such as warnings and product instructions, marketing and advertising in an effort to streamline the proceedings.
In addition, defendants have deposed 29 of the bellwether plaintiffs but disputes over corporate witness depositions continue with the defendants willing to offer written stipulations to certain facts in lieu of having corporate witnesses testify about certain key topics including marketing, warnings and labeling. The parties have yet to reach an agreement on this issue.
There are currently 11,440 plaintiffs in the MDL
Judge Appoints MDL 3060 Leadership Team for Hair Product Litigation
March 14, 2023
On March 3, 2023, Judge Mary M. Rowland, U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, appointed a number of attorneys to leadership positions for the hair product litigation cases in MDL 3060: In Re: Hair Relaxer Marketing Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation. In the order making her appointments, the judge noted that she had relied on a number of criteria, including a willingness and availability to commit to a time-consuming project; the ability to work cooperatively with others; professional experience in this type of hair product litigation; access to sufficient resources to advance the litigation in a timely manner; and diversity.
The Order lists the following leadership appointments:
Plaintiffs’ Co-Lead Counsel
Benjamin L. Crump, Ben Crump Law Firm
Fidelma Fitzpatrick, Motley Rice LLC
Michael A. London, Douglas & London, P.C
Diandra “Fu” Debrosse Zimmermann, DiCello Levitt LLC
Plaintiffs’ Liaison Counsel
Edward A. Wallace, Wallace Miller
Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee (PEC)
Brian Barr,Levin Papantonio Rafferty
Tim Becker, Johnson Becker
Jayne Conroy Simmons, Hanly Conroy
Kelly M. Dermody, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein
Jennifer Hoekstra, Aylstock, Witkin, Kreis & Overholtz, PLLC
LaRuby May, May Jung
Rene F. Rocha, Morgan & Morgan
Larry Taylor, The Cochran Firm
Navan Ward, Beasley Allen
Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee (PSC)
Anne Andrews, Andrews & Thornton
Greg Cade, Environmental Law Group
Thomas P. Cartmell, Wagstaff & Cartmell LLP
Andrew Childers, Childers, Schleuter & Smith
Erin Copeland, Fibich Leebron Copeland Briggs
Maria Fleming, Napoli Shkolnik
Lee Floyd, Breit Biniazan
Kendra Y. Goldhirsch, Chaffin Luhana LLP
Kristine Kraft, Schlichter Bogard & Denton
Buffy Martines, Laminack, Pirtle & Martines
Melanie Muhlstock, Parker Waichman
David A. Neiman, Romanucci & Blandin, LLC
Michelle Parfitt, Ashcraft & Gerel, LLP
Syreeta Poindexter, Babin Law
EricaRae Garcia, Weitz & Luxenberg
Steve Rotman, Hausfeld
Richard W. Schulte, Wright & Schulte LLC
Ashlie Case Sletvold, Peiffer Wolf Carr Kane Conway & Wise, LLP
Chris Stewart, Stewart Mille Simmons
Aimee Wagstaff, Wagstaff Law Firm
Mikal Watts, Watts Guerra
On February 7, 2023, the Motion to Transfer that had been submitted to the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) by plaintiffs seeking to consolidate all pending actions filed against a number of defendants, including cosmetics giant L’Oreal, for injuries allegedly sustained by the use of Defendants’ hair care products, was granted. Plaintiffs claim that exposure to the endocrine-disrupting chemicals found in the defendants’ hair relaxer products caused “disruption of the endocrine system”. These products are commonly used by millions of women of color and according to a report published in October, 2022, in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, may be associated with an increased risk for uterine cancer.
