Free, No-Obligation Hair Relaxer Claim Review
Free Confidential Consultation
Hair Relaxer Lawsuit — Free, Confidential Consultation
Endometriosis after years of relaxers.
Straight answer first: endometriosis claims are outside the federal trial track and have not been dismissed — they are worked up and monitored. That is the structure of the litigation, not a verdict on you. Two confidential minutes, an honest answer either way.
Active litigation — no settlement. MDL 3060 underway · 11,779 cases pending · filing deadlines vary by state and run from when you knew or should have known.
Did you get relaxers — perms, the white cream — every few weeks, for years?
That one question decides most of it. It seems like nobody ever told you the risk was anything worse than a scalp burn.
See where I standfree · confidential · 2 minutes · an honest answer either way
What the lawsuit is actually about →
No receipts needed · you don’t have to remember every brand · no fee unless there is a recovery. Court costs and litigation expenses are advanced by counsel and repaid from the recovery. You are not responsible for court costs or litigation expenses if there is no recovery, unless a court directs otherwise. The attorney’s fee is a percentage of the gross recovery, calculated before expenses are deducted.
Or talk to a person now: (888) 348-2735 — answered 24/7
Marin & Murphy Law Firm
Every inquiry gets a personal review and a straight answer — including “not yet” or “no” — free and without obligation.
Claims are brought against the companies that made and sold chemical relaxers — not against your stylist, your salon, or the person who did your hair growing up. Conversations are confidential. Some matters may be referred to or handled with other law firms. No settlement has been announced and no trial has been held; every case depends on its own facts. This page does not diagnose anything. Attorney Advertising.
The lawsuits are brought by women who allege they used chemical hair relaxer or hair straightener products regularly for long periods and were later diagnosed with endometriosis, endometrial cancer, uterine cancer, and uterine fibroids.
One question decides most of it.
Did you get relaxers — perms, the white cream — at least four times a year for two years or more? Roughly is fine.
free · confidential · no receipts needed · you don’t have to remember every brand · an honest answer either way · no fee unless there is a recovery.
The attorney’s fee is a percentage of the gross recovery, calculated before case expenses are deducted. Case expenses are advanced by the firm and reimbursed to the firm out of the recovery only if there is a recovery. You have no liability for court costs or litigation expenses if there is no recovery, unless a court directs otherwise.
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.
Free, Confidential Consultation — no fee unless there is a recovery
Talk to Marin & Murphy Law Firm at (888) 348-2735 — answered 24/7 — or use the confidential case review form on this page. Some matters may be referred to or handled with other law firms.
The attorney’s fee is a percentage of the gross recovery, calculated before case expenses are deducted. Case expenses are advanced by the firm and reimbursed to the firm out of the recovery only if there is a recovery. You have no liability for court costs or litigation expenses if there is no recovery, unless a court directs otherwise.
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 August 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.
The defendants named in the lawsuits include major cosmetic companies such as L’Oréal, SoftSheen-Carson, Strength of Nature, and Namaste Laboratories. A second group of manufacturers — Wella, John Paul Mitchell Systems, Bronner Bros., Dudley Beauty, Advanced Beauty and Murray’s Worldwide — entered discovery in July 2026 after the court lifted a stay that had been in place since December 2025.
The straight answer on endometriosis claims
Fibroids, endometriosis and breast cancer claims are outside the federal MDL’s current trial track but have not been dismissed as a category. These claims are actively worked up — records obtained, eligibility evaluated, and status monitored — and are positioned for the paths that remain open, including individual filing and any broader resolution.
Take the hard half first. The trial track itself is cancer. The ten bellwether cases the court selected on April 2, 2026 are cancer cases, and the June 2026 damages order describes “the … MDL injury (i.e., ovarian or uterine cancer).” An endometriosis claim is not going to trial in this MDL on the current schedule. Anyone who tells you otherwise is describing a docket that does not exist.
Here is the record behind the rest of it. Endometriosis was named in the injuries the Judicial Panel identified when it centralized these cases in February 2023 (quoted at Dkt. 291 at 2). It stayed in the scope of the MDL 3060 and it has never been dismissed as a category.
What happened in November 2024 was narrower than the internet usually reports. Ruling on the plaintiffs’ own omnibus motion, the court dismissed with prejudice non-cancer injuries claimed alongside a cancer claim by plaintiffs who did not actually have a cancer diagnosis — “to the extent any member Plaintiff claimed any other injury, including but not limited to fibroids or endometriosis” (Dkt. 946). Footnote 5 of the same order sets the standalone case apart, describing the situation where “the individual plaintiff is asserting only fibroids or endometriosis” and noting that the dismissal category “is clearly not limited to the three identified cancers.”
None of that is a ruling about your diagnosis. It is a description of how the court has organized the cases in front of it.
The science, said plainly
It sounds like you have spent years having this pain explained away. What follows is not going to be the confirmation you were hoping for either — but it is better said straight than buried three screens down.
No peer-reviewed epidemiologic study establishing an association between chemical hair relaxers and endometriosis has been located.
That is the honest state of it, and it is unusual to say so on a page like this. A 2024 systematic review searched PubMed, Embase and Scopus and included 17 studies on hair products and gynecological conditions. Its outcomes were breast, ovarian and uterine cancer, uterine leiomyoma, early menarche and fecundability. Endometriosis does not appear as a reviewed outcome at all. The review’s own conclusion about the wider literature: “In summary, the available evidence regarding personal use of hair products and gynecological conditions is insufficient to determine whether a positive association exists.”
What does exist is research on neighboring conditions — a large NIH cohort study associating frequent straightener use with higher uterine cancer rates, a Black Women’s Health Study finding on uterine fibroids, and product-chemistry work that detected 45 of 66 targeted endocrine-disrupting chemicals in 18 hair products marketed to Black women, with 84 percent of detected chemicals absent from the label. Those findings are set out with their citations in the study evidence ledger. They are about other conditions. Presenting them as endometriosis evidence would be dishonest, and any page that stretches them that way is doing something you should notice.
So an endometriosis claim in this litigation is a claimed injury category, supported by the pleadings and by the transfer order’s scope — not by a published association study. That is exactly why these claims are worked up and monitored rather than promised.
Study findings and adverse-event reports describe associations; they are not verified causation.
What actually gets done with an endometriosis claim
Records are obtained — laparoscopy and surgical pathology reports are the documents that matter most, because endometriosis is definitively diagnosed surgically and a clinical impression in a chart is not the same thing. Eligibility is evaluated against your use history and your state’s filing deadline. The docket is monitored, including the pending general-causation ruling that will reshape this litigation in one direction or the other. And the claim is positioned for the paths that stay open: individual filing where facts and forum support it, and inclusion in any broader resolution if one is ever reached.
There is no broader resolution today, and no schedule that produces one.
Do you qualify?
- Used a chemical hair relaxer at least four times a year for at least two years. At-home use counts. Salon use counts. A perm at the kitchen sink every few months counts. Use that ended long ago counts, and nobody is asked whether it was done correctly.
- A documented diagnosis of endometriosis — surgical confirmation carries the most weight.
- Treatment records: laparoscopy, excision or ablation surgery, hysterectomy, hormone therapy, fertility treatment, hospitalizations.
- A rough timeline of relaxer use and whatever brand memory you have. Not remembering the boxes ends nothing.
- Your state’s filing deadline has not run. That deadline generally runs from when you knew or should have known of the connection between the product and the diagnosis, not from your last relaxer.
You will also be asked whether you have had a cancer diagnosis, because that answer changes the lane your claim sits in. The eligibility walkthrough explains the sequence. The first step is about two minutes, costs nothing, and asks nothing you have to find first — records are requested for you, with your authorization.
What this page is not
This page is legal information, not medical advice, and it does not diagnose anything. Questions about your health belong with your own doctor. Nothing here is a recommendation about what to put on your hair or to stop putting on it — that is a conversation for you and your doctor, and this page has no business in it.
No hair relaxer settlement has been announced and no one has been paid. Any page that quotes a dollar figure is estimating. The settlement page explains how product-liability value is actually assessed and why the ranges circulating online contradict each other.
Consultations are free and confidential, and there is no fee unless there is a recovery. Some matters may be referred to or handled with other law firms.
A claim here is against the companies that made and sold the product — not against a salon, not against whoever applied it, and not against you for having used something sold in every drugstore in the country. Would it be wrong to hear where an endometriosis claim actually stands from someone willing to tell you there is no study behind it? You get an answer either way, and it will be the same answer this page just gave you.
Free, Confidential Consultation — no fee unless there is a recovery
Talk to Marin & Murphy Law Firm at (888) 348-2735 — answered 24/7 — or use the confidential case review form on this page. Some matters may be referred to or handled with other law firms.
The attorney’s fee is a percentage of the gross recovery, calculated before case expenses are deducted. Case expenses are advanced by the firm and reimbursed to the firm out of the recovery only if there is a recovery. You have no liability for court costs or litigation expenses if there is no recovery, unless a court directs otherwise.
Frequently Asked Questions
Was endometriosis thrown out of the hair relaxer lawsuit?
No — not as a category. The November 2024 order dismissed non-cancer injuries that were attached to a cancer claim by a plaintiff without a cancer diagnosis. Footnote 5 of that order expressly distinguishes plaintiffs asserting only fibroids or endometriosis.
Is there a study linking hair relaxers to endometriosis?
Not one we have been able to locate. The published research covers uterine cancer, ovarian cancer, breast cancer and uterine fibroids. A 2024 systematic review of 17 studies did not include endometriosis as an outcome. We would rather tell you that than imply evidence that does not exist.
Then why is endometriosis in the lawsuits at all?
Because the transfer order that created the litigation named it, and because plaintiffs have pleaded it. Scope in a transfer order is a description of the claims before the court, not a finding that any of them are correct.
Will my endometriosis case go to trial?
Not on the current federal bellwether track. Other paths remain open, and no one can honestly tell you today which one a given claim will travel.
I have endometriosis and uterine fibroids both.
That is common, and both belong in the review. Cancer diagnoses, if any, are asked about separately because they sit on a different track.
Is this a class action?
No. These are consolidated individual lawsuits (an MDL) — 11,779 pending as of the panel’s August 3, 2026 count, out of 16,199 filed to date.
What does “no fee unless there is a recovery” mean?
The attorney’s fee is a percentage of the gross recovery, calculated before case expenses are deducted. Case expenses are advanced by the firm and reimbursed to the firm out of the recovery only if there is a recovery. You have no liability for court costs or litigation expenses if there is no recovery, unless a court directs otherwise.
Sources
- In re Hair Relaxer Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 3060, N.D. Ill., Master Docket 1:23-cv-00818.
- JPML Transfer Order, quoted at Dkt. 291 at 2 — scope including endometriosis and uterine fibroids.
- Dkt. 946, Memorandum Opinion and Order (Nov. 13, 2024), at 10 and n.5 — dismissal scope and the standalone-claim footnote.
- Dkt. 1781 (Apr. 2, 2026) — ten bellwether trial cases selected by the court.
- Dkt. 1944 (June 22, 2026) — bellwether damages; MDL injury defined as ovarian or uterine cancer.
- Dkt. 1984 (July 24, 2026) — Second Wave discovery stay lifted.
- Dkt. 1911 — Second Wave defendants roster.
- Farooq H, Mhatre P, Aggarwal R, et al., “A systematic review of association between use of hair products and benign and malignant gynecological conditions,” Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2024;295:160–171.
- Chang C-J, O’Brien KM, Keil AP, et al., JNCI 2022;114(12):1636–1645.
- Wise LA, Palmer JR, Reich D, Cozier YC, Rosenberg L, Am J Epidemiol 2012;175(5):432–440.
- Helm JS, Nishioka MN, Brody JG, Rudel RA, Dodson RE, Environmental Research 2018 (Silent Spring Institute).
- JPML, Pending MDL Dockets by Actions Pending, Aug. 3, 2026.
Cases are handled on a contingent-fee basis: no fee unless there is a recovery. The attorney’s fee is a percentage of the gross recovery, calculated before case expenses are deducted. Case expenses are advanced by the firm and reimbursed to the firm out of the recovery only if there is a recovery. You have no liability for court costs or litigation expenses if there is no recovery, unless a court directs otherwise.
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. Some matters may be referred to or handled with other law firms. Cases are handled on a contingent-fee basis: no fee unless there is a recovery. The attorney’s fee is a percentage of the gross recovery, calculated before case expenses are deducted. Case expenses are advanced by the firm and reimbursed to the firm out of the recovery only if there is a recovery. You have no liability for court costs or litigation expenses if there is no recovery, unless a court directs otherwise.
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.
