Sheila Bush, a talented cosmetologist, found herself captivated by an intriguing advertisement that appeared on her television screen while she was relaxing in her St. Louis home last winter. The ad, created by a reputable law firm, encouraged viewers to call a toll-free number if they or a loved one had used hair relaxers and were now faced with a diagnosis of uterine cancer. After seeing the ad a few times, Bush, who had been using hair relaxers regularly and was diagnosed with uterine cancer nearly ten years ago, decided to pick up the phone. These advertisements that Bush saw, both on television and through her social media feeds, were part of a nationwide campaign initiated by law firms to recruit Black women to join lawsuits against several cosmetic companies, including L’Oreal and Revlon. These lawsuits assert that these companies sold hair relaxers that contained chemicals known to increase the risk of developing uterine cancer, all while failing to provide adequate warning to their customers.
This recruitment campaign was launched in October of the previous year, shortly after a study conducted by the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) found an association, albeit not a direct causal link, between frequent use of chemical hair relaxers and the risk of uterine cancer. The lawsuits claim that hair straighteners, such as L’Oreal’s Dark & Lovely and Revlon’s Creme of Nature, are primarily marketed towards women of color. Some of the advertisements showcase Black women applying these hair products before transitioning to a summary of the NIH study’s findings. In response to these allegations, both L’Oreal and Revlon have stated that their products undergo thorough safety evaluations. The companies emphasize that the authors of the NIH study themselves did not definitively conclude that their products caused the women’s cancers, and they believe that further research is necessary.
The makers of these hair products, featured in excerpts from 1970s to 2014 television advertisements found on YouTube, are now seeking to have the lawsuits dismissed. Revlon reiterates that they do not believe there is scientific evidence to support a link between chemical hair straighteners or relaxers and cancer. L’Oreal adds that their commitment lies in providing the best products for all skin and hair types, all genders, all identities, all cultures, and all ages. The company also underscores the rich history and heritage of their hair relaxers, which originated from Black inventors and entrepreneurs. Namaste, the company behind ORS Olive Oil relaxers, asserts that all the ingredients in their products are approved for cosmetic use by U.S. regulators. They firmly deny that the use of their hair relaxer products has caused any injuries, stating that the plaintiffs have failed to prove their claims. The other companies involved in the litigation either declined to comment or did not respond to requests for comment.
The success of these lawsuits hinges on the ability to demonstrate that these products are indeed harmful and that the companies were aware, or should have been aware, of the risks and failed to warn their customers. However, the plaintiffs face certain challenges. In addition to potential limitations in the NIH study, they are suing multiple companies. Furthermore, if women lack receipts, it may be difficult for them to provide evidence of their specific product usage. The first hair relaxer lawsuit was filed on behalf of Missouri woman Jenny Mitchell by Ben Crump, the attorney who represented the family of George Floyd. Since then, over 7,000 similar lawsuits have been filed by various lawyers. These cases have been consolidated in a federal court in Chicago as part of a multidistrict litigation proceeding that aims to streamline the management of lawsuits filed in different jurisdictions.
Although the legal claims in these lawsuits do not explicitly allege racial discrimination, Crump argues that they should be viewed as civil rights issues. He notes that for Black women, there is often pressure to conform to European standards of beauty, which can have a detrimental impact on their self-esteem. This sentiment resonates with Bush, now 69 years old, who recalls being taunted by white children in her St. Louis schoolyard for her “cotton” hair, a derogatory term commonly used to describe Black hair texture. Bush describes feeling a sense of inferiority and alienation, even though the landmark Supreme Court decision in 1954 deemed racial segregation in public schools unconstitutional. According to Jayne Conroy, a lawyer involved in the litigation with at least 550 hair relaxer cases, the majority of the plaintiffs are women of color. However, specific demographic data is not readily available.
The legal battle surrounding these lawsuits has been framed as a civil rights issue by plaintiffs’ lawyers. The master complaint filed in the consolidated court proceeding provides numerous examples of advertisements that the plaintiffs argue improperly exploited historical racial discrimination. For instance, one L’Oreal ad highlighted the beauty of Black hair, according to the complaint. The complaint seeks unspecified damages. This approach of framing the litigation as a civil rights matter could potentially resonate with jurors, going beyond the complexities of product liability claims. Adam Zimmerman, a professor at the University of Southern California Gould School of Law specializing in mass tort litigation, suggests that this strategy may have a broader emotional impact.
These lawsuits emerge at a time when an increasing number of Black individuals are embracing natural hairstyles. Over 23 states have enacted legislation to combat hair discrimination in the workplace and public schools. The U.S. House of Representatives passed similar legislation in the previous year, but its progress in the Senate stalled. Women are now taking cosmetic companies to court, contending that hair relaxers have heightened their risk of developing uterine cancer. As expected, the companies deny these claims and are seeking to have the cases dismissed. Uterine cancer is the most commonly diagnosed form of female reproductive system cancer, with higher rates among Black women, according to the NIH. In comparison to the estimated 66,000 new cases of uterine cancer this year in the United States, there are more than three times as many cases of ovarian cancer and over four times as many cases of invasive breast cancer. The NIH study, which examined over 33,000 women, demonstrated that those who reported using hair straightening products more than four times in the previous year were over twice as likely to develop uterine cancer compared to those who did not. The study also highlighted that Black women used these products more frequently. The study did not collect detailed information on the specific ingredients of the products used by the women. However, Dr. Alexandra White, the lead author, confirmed that hair straighteners have been found to contain phthalates, parabens, cyclosiloxanes, and metals, and may release formaldehyde when heated. Formaldehyde is a known carcinogen and has been linked to nasopharyngeal cancer and leukemia. The NIH study also suggested that phthalates and other chemicals found in these hair products may be endocrine disruptors, potentially contributing to the risk of cancer. Namaste’s lawyer maintains that formaldehyde is not an ingredient in their hair relaxer products. The other companies either declined to comment or did not respond when asked about the presence of formaldehyde in their products. Defense lawyers representing the companies have criticized the flaws they perceive in the NIH study. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration intends to propose a rule in April of next year that would ban formaldehyde and formaldehyde-releasing chemicals from hair-straightening products. The agency did not provide additional details regarding the timeline of this proposal.
