In August, Judge Mary M. Rowland dismissed nearly 200 plaintiffs’ cases in the ongoing In RE: Hair Relaxer Marketing, Sales Practices, And Products Liability Litigation [Hair Relaxer], a multidistrict litigation (MDL) that is pending in the Northern District Court of Illinois, giving the plaintiffs a year to refile their claims.

This mass tort MDL is only one of many that are currently being litigated throughout the country. Others include Camp Lejeune litigation, Firefighting Foam (AFFF) litigation, Philips CPAP machine recall litigation, and Exactech knee and ankle recall litigation. As a mediator, trial lawyer and complex litigation specialist who has represented clients in product liability cases, class actions, and mass tort cases, I’d like to take a closer look at some of the issues in these hair relaxer case.

|

The Background

The Hair Relaxer litigation is a relatively new MDR mass tort case. In October 2022, a groundbreaking new study was published which found that regular use of hair relaxer (a product used by millions of Black women in the U.S.) increases the risk of uterine cancer. This immediately sparked a wave of hair relaxer cancer lawsuits that were consolidated into a mass tort MDL now pending in the Northern District of Illinois. Defendants include L’Oreal (for products including Dark & Lovely and Ultra Sheen), Namaste LLC (ORS Olive Oil Hair Relaxer), TCB Naturals/Godrej Consumer Products (Just for Me) and Strength of Nature Global, LLC (Motions).

|

Dismissal of Some Plaintiffs/The Addition of More Plaintiffs

Millions of African American women in the U.S. use hair relaxers on a regular basis. The use of these products often starts during childhood and continues throughout their entire adult lives, which makes the size of the potential plaintiff field in this case very large. In 2023, the Hair Relaxer MDL was the
fastest-growing mass tort in the country. The MDL started the year with less than 150 pending cases and ended 2023 with over 9,000 pending cases; currently there are about 8,600 cases.

Judge Rowland dismissed nearly 200 plaintiffs’ cases for failing to either submit fact sheets or supplement deficient and incomplete fact sheets. The cases were dismissed without prejudice and plaintiffs were given until June 25, 2025, to refile. If the dismissed plaintiffs do not refile within this timeframe, those cases will be dismissed with prejudice, prohibiting the Plaintiffs from proceeding.

Plaintiffs face myriad challenges when addressing mass tort cases, and the challenges can vary depending on the type of mass tort claim. One challenge many plaintiffs are confronted with is client selection. When a mass tort is in its infancy, it may be difficult to determine what claims will survive a defendant’s effort to sever the causal link between its product and a plaintiff’s alleged injuries. Failing to fill out the proper documentation, such as with the fact sheets in this case, can lead to the dismissal of those claims.

It’s likely that the number of plaintiffs in this case will continue to grow as more women assert that they have developed cancer as a result of hair relaxer use. As of the time of this writing, hair relaxer cases include women who have used hair relaxer at least five times a year and have been diagnosed with uterine cancer, endometrial cancer, and ovarian cancer, as well as women who had had fibroids and have had to have a hysterectomy as a result.

|

Compensation of Lead Counsel

How lead counsel will be compensated is another pending issue in this case. In August, Judge Rowland entered an order that approved a common benefit assessment of 8% in fees and 3% costs but noted that lawyers representing clients in state court cases would be excluded from the assessment, stating
that the court’s jurisdiction didn’t extend to cases that were not pending in federal court.

Work performed in the MDL may benefit plaintiffs who are not included in the MDL, and lead counsel has filed a motion to reconsider Judge Rowland’s order, arguing that although Judge Rowland may not have jurisdiction over the state court cases, the court does have jurisdiction over the lawyers appearing before her in the MDL—who may also represent clients in state court cases. Lead counsel’s motion argues that failing to apply a common benefit holdback order to the cases MDL counsel has outside of the MDL would “work a substantial injustice and undermine the effectiveness of the MDL process” and incentivize attorneys to keep cases outside of the MDL, which would make MDLs less effective as way of managing mass litigation.

|

Pending Discovery Issues

As in other mass tort cases, discovery in the Hair Relaxer case has been defendant focused. Plaintiff oriented discovery will likely be reduced to fact sheets and other truncated discovery procedures. There has been an ongoing delay in discovery involving Revlon. Revlon has not been named as a defendant in the lawsuit because it declared Chapter 11 bankruptcy before the filing of the Hair Relaxer case.

Plaintiffs have filed a claim with the bankruptcy court, asking the bankruptcy court to account for damages when Revlon is reorganized. Revlon is, however, subject to discovery requests, and according to the plaintiffs, Revlon has failed to comply with discovery requests it provided the company in December 2023. Revlon has claimed that it needed to review 900,000 pages of documents before it can respond to plaintiffs and was given a deadline by the court to produce the documents by August 9, 2024. While Revlon has provided some documents, plaintiffs are claiming that it has not fully responded to its requests and have asked the judge to set a timeline for Revlon to fully comply with all discovery requests to avoid slowing down the litigation process or potential settlements.

|

My Advice for Counsel

The ongoing Hair Relaxer case presents a myriad of issues, but my advice for both plaintiffs’ lawyers and defense lawyers is the same—communicate with opposing counsel often and early. The complexity of mass tort cases requires lawyers, whether they represent a defendant or plaintiffs, to prepare for extended and time-consuming litigation. The litigation can, and often will be unnecessarily protracted if the parties don’t understand one another. Counselors should consider scheduling regular “check-ins” with each other to discuss the progress of the litigation, their clients’ goals, their expectations, and if possible, to simply get to know the lawyers they will likely be working with for a long time.


M.J. Blakely is an attorney in private practice and a mediator at Miles Mediation & Arbitration in Atlanta.

Interested in writing? Daily Report is seeking to boost its guest-written commentaries and invites readers to submit commentaries and ideas. Also invited for submission are letters to the editor, guest photos, awards and event and business news releases, as well as ideas on topics for coverage across the spectrum of the legal landscape. Contact [email protected] for more information.