Yes, new expert testimony can help a hair relaxer lawsuit claim move forward. It cleared a key admissibility hurdle for plaintiffs alleging uterine and ovarian cancer.
Chemical hair relaxers are creams or lotions that straighten curly hair. General causation means proof that a product can cause disease in people generally. The October 2026 rulings kept that issue alive for relaxer plaintiffs.
Official resources:
- Read the official guidance from NIH — Use this primary source to verify the official guidance.
- Read the official notice from Dicellolevitt — Use this primary source to verify the official announcement.
Table of Contents
- What did the court allow?
- What does the science show?
- Does this prove your case?
- What is happening in court now?
What did the court allow?
Judge Mary M. Rowland denied defendants' motion to exclude plaintiffs' epidemiology expert Dr. Cote. She found the opinion that chemical relaxers can cause uterine and ovarian cancer admissible on general causation. The U.S.
District Court record states this finding in the October 22 opinion entry. The same order denied the challenge to a second plaintiffs expert in part and granted it in part. It preserved substantial testimony on biological mechanisms by which relaxer chemicals may contribute to cancer. It also permits experts to evaluate finished relaxer products as a whole. They need not name one ingredient or mix when the method is otherwise reliable, according to the DiCello Levitt summary in the opinion summary.
What does the science show?
NIEHS scientists followed 33,947 Sister Study women ages 35-74 for almost 11 years. They recorded 378 uterine cancers. Frequent straightener use of more than four times yearly was linked to over double the uterine-cancer risk, the NIEHS reported in the NIEHS report.
📨 Get Free Mass Tort Guides Alerts
Free · No spam · Unsubscribe anytime
The NIH team said parabens, bisphenol A, metals and formaldehyde found in straighteners could contribute to risk. The same NIEHS report found no uterine-cancer link for dyes, bleach, highlights or perms. It also stated Black women may be more affected because of higher use of straightening products.
Does this prove your case?
The October ruling decides only general causation. It does not prove any individual's cancer was caused by relaxers. A claimant still needs diagnosis, documented product use and specific-causation evidence, as reported by HealthDay News via Powers Health.
Specific causation connects the product to your own illness. Medical records, pathology reports and a history of products and frequency help build that link. A lawyer or doctor can tell you what records fill the gaps.
What is happening in court now?
The federal cases are consolidated as MDL No. 3060 before Judge Rowland in the Northern District of Illinois. About 12,381 cases were pending in the Oct. 1, 2026 JPML report. The first bellwether trial is set for Sept.
7, 2027, according to the AboutLawsuits docket report. If you are considering a claim, gather these items now. They address the specific-causation proof courts still require. Bring that file to a mass tort intake review before the bellwether moves forward. Early records are harder to dispute than later memories.
- Uterine or ovarian cancer diagnosis and treatment records.
- List of relaxer brands, where and how often you used them.
- Dates of use and any photos, receipts or witness notes.
You Might Also Like
- What Injuries Qualify for a Hair Relaxer Lawsuit Claim?
- Hair Relaxer Lawsuit Settlement Payouts and Eligibility Explained
- Video Game Addiction Lawsuit: Who Can File a Claim?