Free, No-Obligation Hair Relaxer Claim Review
Free Confidential Consultation
Hair Relaxer Lawsuit — Free, Confidential Consultation
The studies behind the lawsuit, row by row.
Who was studied, what the researchers reported, and what that does not prove. If you got relaxers for years, one question tells you where you stand.
Active litigation — no settlement. MDL 3060 underway · 12,381 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.
Six published studies have examined chemical hair relaxers and reproductive health. The largest reported that frequent users had roughly 2.5 times the uterine cancer rate of never-users. These are statistical associations across large groups — not proof about any one woman or any one product.
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 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.
This page is legal information, not medical advice, and it does not diagnose anything. Questions about your health belong with your own doctor.
It sounds like you have already run into one of these numbers somewhere — in a headline, or on a page that printed the scary half and skipped the rest. Below is the whole ledger, including the findings that cut against the litigation and the one row that is empty.
How to read these numbers
A hazard ratio is how often a condition appeared in one group compared with another over the same period: 1.00 means no difference, 2.55 means about two and a half times as often. Two cautions travel with every number below. An association is not a cause. And a doubled rate is not a doubled certainty — in the largest study, the difference behind the 2.55 was an estimated 1.64 women in 100 against about 4 in 100, by age 70. Doubling a small number still leaves a small number.
What none of this research settles
No study tested individual brands. None assigns a cause to any one woman’s diagnosis. None was designed to answer a legal question. The federal court overseeing MDL 3060 has not ruled on the defense challenge to the plaintiffs’ scientific experts.
The study ledger
Sister Study, 2022 — uterine cancer
Population. 33,947 women aged 35–74 with a uterus at enrollment (2003–2009), each the sister of someone with breast cancer. Follow-up 10.9 years; 378 uterine cancers.
Reported. Ever vs never use in the previous 12 months, “HR = 1.80, 95% CI = 1.12 to 2.88”; frequent use (>4 times in 12 months) vs never, “HR = 2.55, 95% CI = 1.46 to 4.45.” NIH put it in absolute terms: an estimated 1.64% of never-users developing uterine cancer by age 70, against 4.05% of frequent users.
Does not show. That relaxers caused those 378 cancers, which brand was involved, or what any one woman’s risk is. The cohort was recruited through family history of breast cancer.
Study findings and adverse-event reports describe associations; they are not verified causation.
Sister Study, 2021 — ovarian cancer
Population. 40,559 women from the same cohort — 84% non-Hispanic White, 8% Black — followed about ten years; 241 ovarian cancers.
Reported. Frequent (>4×/year) straightener, relaxer or pressing-product use vs never: HR = 2.19 (95% CI: 1.12–4.27).
Does not show. With 241 cases the confidence interval is wide. This cohort is predominantly White; it is not a finding about Black women specifically.
Study findings and adverse-event reports describe associations; they are not verified causation.
Black Women’s Health Study, 2012 — uterine fibroids
Population. 23,580 premenopausal participants, 1997–2009; 199,991 person-years; 7,146 new cases of uterine leiomyomata (4,630 ultrasound-confirmed, 2,516 surgery-confirmed).
Reported. Ever vs never use: 1.17 (95% CI: 1.06, 1.30) — about 17% higher fibroid rates. Rates rose with frequency (P<0.001), duration (P=0.015) and scalp burns (P<0.001), but not with age at first use or formula type.
Does not show. A 17% difference is modest, and fibroids are common regardless of relaxer use. It does not establish that relaxers caused any one woman’s fibroids.
Study findings and adverse-event reports describe associations; they are not verified causation.
Black Women’s Health Study, 2023 — uterine cancer
Population. Nearly 45,000 women in the same cohort with no prior cancer history, followed up to 22 years — the first large study of hair relaxers among Black women.
Reported, in plain language. Women who used relaxers more than twice a year, or for more than five years, had “a greater than 50% increased risk of uterine cancer.”
Does not show. The hazard ratios behind that summary are paywalled and are not printed here until read in the original.
Study findings and adverse-event reports describe associations; they are not verified causation.
Breast cancer — the findings disagree
Population. Two cohorts: a 46,709-woman Sister Study analysis (2020), and a 50,543-woman Black Women’s Health Study analysis (1997–2017, 2,311 breast cancers).
Reported, in plain language. The Sister Study analysis found women using straighteners every five to eight weeks or more were “about 30% more likely to develop breast cancer.” The Black Women’s Health Study authors landed elsewhere: results “were largely null, but there was some evidence that heavy use of lye-containing hair relaxers may be associated with increased risk of ER+ breast cancer.”
Does not show. Read together, the breast cancer evidence is unsettled — one signal, one largely null result. A page printing only the first is telling half of it.
Study findings and adverse-event reports describe associations; they are not verified causation.
Silent Spring Institute, 2018 — what is in the products
Tested. 18 hair products marketed to Black women, screened for 66 endocrine-disrupting and asthma-associated chemicals.
Reported. 45 of the 66 were detected — parabens, fragrances, phthalates, nonylphenols, cyclosiloxanes. Relaxers marketed to children carried the highest levels of five chemicals prohibited in the EU or regulated under California’s Proposition 65. And: “84 percent of chemicals detected were not listed on the product label.”
Does not show. Detecting a chemical is not showing it caused disease at the level detected. This is chemistry, not epidemiology.
Study findings and adverse-event reports describe associations; they are not verified causation.
Endometriosis — no association study was located
This row stays blank, and it should. A 2024 systematic review included 17 studies of hair products and gynecological conditions; its outcomes were breast, ovarian and uterine cancer, fibroids, early menarche and fecundability. Endometriosis does not appear as a reviewed outcome, and no peer-reviewed study establishing a relaxer–endometriosis association was located. The review concluded that “the available evidence regarding personal use of hair products and gynecological conditions is insufficient to determine whether a positive association exists.”
Endometriosis appears in the litigation as a claimed injury. It does not appear in the research as an established association, and this page will not pretend otherwise.
Study findings and adverse-event reports describe associations; they are not verified causation.
If you want your own situation looked at
A review is a conversation, not a project. It takes about two minutes to start, needs no receipts, no brand names and no letter from a doctor, and a person calls you back — usually within a business day. What a review works from:
- Used a chemical hair relaxer at least four times a year for at least two years.
- A diagnosis of uterine, endometrial or ovarian cancer, fibroids, or another reproductive condition.
- Some way to place the use in time — years, salon, brand, or your own account.
- Willingness to have records requested with your written permission.
The consultation is 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.
One thing worth saying plainly, because it stops a lot of women before they start: this is a claim against the companies that made and sold the product. It is not a claim against your stylist, against your mother, or against anything you did. Would it be wrong to find out where you stand before deciding anything?
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
Does this research prove hair relaxers cause cancer?
No. Every finding above is an association measured across a group. Study findings and adverse-event reports describe associations; they are not verified causation.
Which brand did the studies test?
None. They asked women about categories of use — straighteners, relaxers, pressing products — not about brands. Any page assigning a risk number to one brand is inventing it.
A 2.55 hazard ratio sounds enormous. Is it?
It is a substantial relative difference and a small absolute one — an estimated 1.64% of never-users versus 4.05% of frequent users by age 70.
I have fibroids, not cancer. Does the research help me?
The 2012 study looked at fibroids and reported a modest association. What the research supports and what the litigation is currently trying are different questions — the eligibility page explains the injury lanes.
Why do other sites list numbers this page does not?
Several underlying papers are paywalled and their effect sizes circulate second-hand. Anything unconfirmed against the source is flagged here, not printed.
Where does the litigation stand on the science?
Defendants have asked the court to exclude the plaintiffs’ general-causation experts. That motion was briefed in June 2026 and remains undecided.
Sources
- Chang et al., JNCI 2022;114(12):1636–1645.
- NIH news release, Oct. 17, 2022. (Release states 33,497; journal states 33,947. The journal figure is used.)
- White et al., Carcinogenesis 2021;42(9):1189–1195.
- Wise et al., Am J Epidemiol 2012;175(5):432–440.
- Bertrand et al., Environ Res 2023;239:117228; Boston University announcement, Oct. 11, 2023.
- Eberle et al., Int J Cancer 2020;147(2):383–391.
- Coogan et al., Carcinogenesis 2021;42(7):924–930.
- Helm et al., Environmental Research 2018; Silent Spring Institute announcement, Apr. 10, 2018.
- Farooq et al., Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2024;295:160–171.
- In re Hair Relaxer Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 3060, N.D. Ill., Dkts. 946, 1778, 1828.
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.