CHICAGO, Illinois — In a significant legal development in the Northern District Court of Illinois, nearly 200 plaintiffs had their cases dismissed by Judge Mary M. Rowland in the expansive multidistrict litigation (MDL) known as the In RE: Hair Relaxer Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation. This decision in August allowed the plaintiffs until June 2025 to refile their claims, bringing new attention to the litigation that involves several major companies, including L’Oreal and Godrej Consumer Products, among others.
This MDL focuses on allegations that hair relaxing products, widely used among African American women, have been linked to an increased risk of uterine, endometrial, and ovarian cancers. The litigation gained momentum following a 2022 study which prompted a surge in lawsuits, claiming that regular usage of these products could potentially lead to severe health issues.
The legal challenges in the Hair Relaxer MDL are symptomatic of broader difficulties faced in mass tort cases, such as determining the legitimacy of claims early in the process and managing extensive documentation like plaintiff fact sheets. Failure to submit or correctly fill out these important documents was cited as the reason for the recent dismissals by Judge Rowland.
With nearly 9,000 cases pending by the end of 2023, the Hair Relaxer MDL stands out as one of the fastest-growing tort litigations in the United States. This growth reflects an increasing awareness among women about the potentially harmful effects of hair relaxers, leading to severe health outcomes such as cancers and the need for surgical interventions like hysterectomies.
Financial and procedural aspects of the litigation also pose significant hurdles. An order by Judge Rowland in August determined that an 8% fee and a 3% cost would be levied as a common benefit assessment on cases, excluding those dealt with in state courts, highlighting jurisdictional challenges and the complexities of managing multi-faceted litigation finances.
Furthermore, discovery procedures, which have often leaned heavily towards the defendants, saw setbacks, particularly involving Revlon, which has yet to fully respond to discovery requests due to its ongoing Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings. The delay posed by Revlon’s slow document production process threatens to protract the litigation further, raising concerns about timely settlements.
Given these multifarious issues, strategic communication and cooperation between plaintiffs’ and defense attorneys are crucial. Regular interactions could simplify understanding and potentially expedite a litigation process that otherwise risks becoming protracted unnecessarily.
As this landmark case continues to develop, it serves as a crucial litmus test for similar cases nationwide, underscoring the intricate and protracted nature of mass tort litigations and the profound impacts they have on the individuals involved.
Disclaimer: This article was automatically generated by Open AI. The accuracy of the names, dates, events, and other details mentioned may not be fully verified. Any requests for corrections, retractions, or removals should be directed to contact@publiclawlibrary.org.