Contact Marin & Murphy
Marin & Murphy is licensed in South Carolina, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut, and works with lawyers licensed across the country.
Marin & Murphy is not licensed in the District of Columbia; a matter there would be handled with, or referred to, a lawyer licensed in that state.
Hair Relaxer Litigation — MDL 3060
The Hair Relaxer Litigation, Explained
Federal cases are consolidated in MDL 3060; no trial has been held and no settlement exists. Here is what is publicly known.
Active litigation — no settlement. MDL 3060 underway · 12,381 cases pending · deadlines vary by state.
Marin & Murphy Law Firm is not licensed in the District of Columbia; details below.
Marin & Murphy Law Firm
No settlement has been announced in the hair relaxer litigation and no trial has been held. Every case depends on its own facts. Whether any individual has a claim depends on the facts and the law of her state. The information below covers the litigation itself.
Marin & Murphy Law Firm is not licensed in District of Columbia; details below.
Hair relaxer lawsuits brought by District of Columbia residents are part of MDL 3060, consolidated before Judge Mary M. Rowland in the Northern District of Illinois. The filed cases allege that long-term chemical relaxer use is associated with uterine, ovarian, and endometrial cancer.
This page is about a lawsuit — it is legal information, not medical advice, and it does not diagnose anything. Questions about your health belong with your own doctor.
Lawsuits consolidated in federal court in Chicago (MDL 3060) allege that long-term use of chemical hair relaxers is associated with uterine cancer, ovarian cancer, and related conditions. As of October 2026 the cases are in pretrial proceedings; no trial has been held and no settlement has been announced. The allegations have not been proven, and each case depends on its own facts.
How District of Columbia actions reach the consolidated docket
Federal hair relaxer actions filed by District of Columbia residents originate in the federal district court for the state (D.D.C.). The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transfers them to the Northern District of Illinois, where they are managed together for pretrial purposes. Residents of Washington, Anacostia and Georgetown are among those affected. Transfer decides nothing about the merits; instead of D.D.C. litigating the common questions separately, they are centralized and answered once.
What District of Columbia law provides on timing
Deadlines come from state law rather than from the MDL, so they differ from state to state. In District of Columbia, the deadline for a hair relaxer product claim is not settled by a single number: the limitations period, when it starts to run for an injury that surfaces years after use, and any products statute of repose are separate questions. No general products statute of repose was located for District of Columbia. A relaxer injury usually surfaces years after the last use, so the contested question is often not the length of the period but when it began to run. Whether an individual action is timely turns on those facts and on how District of Columbia courts apply the rules.
Who is included in the filed cases?
The consolidated complaints were brought by women who used chemical relaxers over years and were later diagnosed with cancer. A November 13, 2024 order identified uterine, ovarian, and endometrial cancer as the core injuries and set a six-month window to refile after a later diagnosis of one of those three. Standalone fibroid and endometriosis claims were preserved, and the transfer order describes a broader scope reaching breast cancer, endometriosis, fibroids, and other reproductive injuries. That scope describes how the docket is organized rather than a judgment about any individual; whether a particular District of Columbia resident’s circumstances fall inside the filed cases is a question for attorney review.
What the studies describe
The NIH Sister Study reported in 2022 that women using chemical straighteners more than four times a year were about twice as likely to develop uterine cancer Sister Study — by age 70, roughly 4 in 100 against about 1.6 in 100 among women who did not use them. A 2021 analysis reported a comparable ovarian signal. Study findings and adverse-event reports describe associations; they are not verified causation.
Where the litigation stands
The Court selected ten bellwether trial cases on April 2, 2026. A defense motion to exclude the plaintiffs’ general-causation experts, briefed June 16, 2026, remains undecided. On July 24, 2026 the Court lifted the discovery stay on the Second Wave defendants: “It is time to litigate.” No hair relaxer settlement has been announced and no one has been paid. Any page that quotes a dollar figure is estimating. Posture is tracked on the MDL 3060 update page and the chemical straightener lawsuits hub; announced resolutions sit on the settlement page.
Some matters may be referred to or handled with other law firms.
Frequently Asked Questions
Who is included in the filed cases?
Women diagnosed with uterine, ovarian, or endometrial cancer after years of relaxer use. Fibroid and endometriosis claims survive as standalone claims.
What deadlines apply to District of Columbia residents?
District of Columbia’s general rules are summarized above ; when the period starts, and any repose statute, are separate questions. A District of Columbia-licensed attorney can evaluate whether a claim is timely.
Where are District of Columbia actions heard?
They originate in D.D.C. and transfer to the Northern District of Illinois for pretrial proceedings before Judge Mary M. Rowland.
Is there something to join?
No. These are consolidated individual lawsuits (an MDL), not a proceeding with a membership list.
Has any hair relaxer case been tried?
No. Ten bellwether cases were selected on April 2, 2026, and the first bellwether trial is set for September 7, 2027.
Nearby states
Sources
- In re Hair Relaxer Mktg. & Prods. Liab. Litig., MDL No. 3060, N.D. Ill.; Dkts. 291, 946, 1781, 1984.
- JPML, Pending MDL Dockets by Actions Pending, Aug. 3, 2026.
- D.C. Code § 12-301(a)(8) (https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/12-301).
- JNCI (2022); Carcinogenesis (2021).
Marin & Murphy Law Firm is not licensed in District of Columbia. The firm does not accept District of Columbia legal matters; inquiries from District of Columbia residents are referred to attorneys licensed in District of Columbia. Some matters may be referred to or handled with other law firms.
Attorney admissions: Matthew T. Marin — RI, CT, MA, SC, U.S.D.C. D.R.I. · Stefanie A. Murphy — RI, CT, MA, U.S.D.C. D.R.I./D.Conn./D.Mass.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
Attorney Advertising. This website and its contents are intended to provide general information about Marin & Murphy Law Firm and about legal developments in the chemical hair relaxer litigation. Nothing on this page is legal advice, and nothing on this page creates an attorney-client relationship. No attorney-client relationship is formed by sending information through this site, by telephone, or by any form on it; an attorney-client relationship is created only by a written agreement signed by you and the firm.
Prior results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome in any other matter. Every case is different and is decided on its own facts. Statements on this page about the status of litigation describe allegations that have not been proven and court filings that speak for themselves.
Marin & Murphy Law Firm is licensed to practice in the states identified on this site and is not licensed in every state. Some matters may be referred to or handled with other law firms.
This page is legal information, not medical advice, and it does not diagnose anything. Questions about your health belong with your own doctor. The attorney responsible for this advertisement is Matthew T. Marin, Esq.
Where we practice
Marin & Murphy Law Firm attorneys are licensed in Rhode Island, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and South Carolina. We are not licensed in the District of Columbia. The firm does not accept District of Columbia legal matters; inquiries from District of Columbia residents are referred to attorneys licensed in the District of Columbia. This page is attorney advertising and is provided for general information; it is not legal advice, and reading it does not create an attorney–client relationship.