A federal judge has refused to pull the plug on thousands of lawsuits against more than a dozen hair care and cosmetic products makers, including Revlon and L'Oreal, accusing the companies of selling hair relaxer products that allegedly caused cancer.
The lawsuits have piled into courts across the country, with more being added by the day, since 2021. The lawsuits were fueled by reports from the National Institutes of Health and the National Institute on Minority Health Sciences, which asserted women who used hair relaxer products were at a significantly higher risk of contracting uterine and ovarian cancer.
The lawsuits have primarly been brought on behalf of thousands of Black women who claim they contracted such cancers from their use of the hair relaxer products. They assert their use of the products was driven by the American health and beauty industry and the greater white-majority society, in general, which encouraged them to straighten their naturally curly hair to "conform to Eurocentric beauty standards."
A federal judicial panel consolidated all of the cases into a single action, and transferred all of the lawsuits to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in Chicago.
The lawsuits all carry the same essential claims against the hair product makers, accusing them of misleading consumers about the safety of their products; failing to warn consumers of the health risks allegedly associated with using the products; breach of warranty, under both state and federal laws; and fraud, as well as personal injury and wrongful death claims.
They are seeking a potentially massive payout, including punitive damages, which are damages awarded entirely to punish defendants, and are ordered on top of actual financial losses or to cover actual medical bills.
To date, the actual financial award sought by the plaintiffs has not been made public.
In response to the claims, the defendants lobbied a number of defenses.
Judge Rowland, however, sided almost entirely with plaintiffs, in allowing the bulk of the legal claims to proceed.
While the judge nixed the fraud claims, all others were allowed to continue.
Rowland specifically rejected the cosmetic companies' claims that the lawsuits should be preempted and disallowed under the federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act, which generally governs cosmetics labeling.
The judge said the lawsuits are not necessarily about labeling. Rather, they are product liability claims, asserting the plaintiffs were harmed by a product that the companies did or should have known was harmful.
Further, the judge rejected the defendants' assertions that the record is clear that they weren't aware their products could be dangerous until at least 2021, when the NIH released its reports.
Rather, the judge said, the plaintiffs' complaint asserts the companies allegedly may have been aware of the alleged potential hazards in the products in the 1990s, after selling the products since the 1970s and 1980s.
So, the judge said she would allow the plaintiffs to continue to press claims associated with the companies' alleged failure to warn consumers about those alleged dangers.
Rowland further denied the companies' attempt to scuttle the demand for punitive damages at this point in the proceedings. The companies argued any demand for punitive damages is premature, because plaintiffs have not yet defended the "alleged facts" contained in their pleadings.
The judge, though, said she found the pleadings in support of a punitive damages demand "adequate" at this point.
Rowland said the defendants may be allowed later in the proceedings to attempt to defeat the scientific claims contained in the hair relaxer studies that buttress the lawsuits. But for now, she said, the lawsuits can continue.
According to a status report submitted to the judge on Nov. 13, the parties are in talks for a so-called "bellwether process," to select certain of the thousands of cases to bring to trial to potentially try the merits of the plaintiffs' claims before juries. However, no trial dates have yet been set.
Plaintiffs are represented in the action by an array of attorneys and law firms. The consolidated action, however, is led by attorneys Edward A. Wallace, of Wallace Miller, of Chicago; Diandra "Fu" Debrosse Zimmerman, of DiCello Levitt, of Birmingham, Alabama; Fidelma L. Fitzpatrick, of Motley Rice, of Providence, Rhode Island; Michael A. London, of Douglas & London, of New York; and Benjamin L. Crump, of Ben Crump Law Firm, of Tallahassee, Florida.
Defendant companies are represented by attorney Mark C. Goodman, of Baker & McKenzie, of San Francisco; and attorneys from the firms of Ellis George Cipollone O’Brien Annaguey, of Los Angeles; Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, of Chicago and Florham Park, New Jersey; Kirkland & Ellis, of Chicago; Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer, of New York and Los Angeles; McGuireWoods LLP, of Chicago and Richmond, Virginia; Litchfield Cavo, of Chicago; and Wiedner & McAuliffe, of Chicago.