Revlon Hair Relaxer Updates | Houston | Jason Joy & Assoc.

September 1, 2023

Revlon, despite its ongoing bankruptcy proceedings, has presented an update to the multidistrict litigation (MDL) judge. The company has emphasized that any claims against it must adhere to the bankruptcy court's order and proof-of-claim procedures. Under the plan's articles, potential plaintiffs must file a hair straightening complaint against Revlon by September 14, 2023.


This deadline provides a unique opportunity to those who have suffered adverse reactions from the product, as even if they had already filed a claim, they can still file an additional one before the deadline. It is important to note, however, that those who are already part of the MDL may not be able to pursue separate personal injury claims against Revlon outside of the MDL.


As a result of this unique opportunity and other developments in the lawsuit proceedings, more claimants are being encouraged to come forward and file their own hair relaxer lawsuits if they have experienced adverse reactions to the product. With a wide range of potential damages. It is important for individuals affected by these hair relaxer products to speak out about their experiences in order to seek justice. 


The lawsuits allege that Revlon's hair relaxers contain dangerous chemicals that could cause severe health issues. The complaints further allege that Revlon failed to properly warn consumers about these risks. The plaintiffs are seeking compensation for medical bills, lost wages, and other damages related to their injuries.


The plaintiffs' master complaint has been filed, offering a comprehensive and detailed explanation of the allegations made by the plaintiffs. The MDL has grown to encompass 275 cases, with 36 new cases added in the last month, despite this period traditionally being a slow time for new mass tort filings.


A new short form complaint has been approved by the court, streamlining the process of filing new hair relaxer lawsuits. This could potentially lead to an increase in new filings. The case filings have reached a new monthly high in July, with 87 new cases added, indicating a steady upward trend in new case filings over the last four months.


As we continue to monitor this case, we anticipate further developments and will keep you informed on all updates regarding these hair relaxer lawsuits. If you or someone you know has been negatively affected by a hair relaxer product please reach out to our office for a legal consultation 713-221-6500.


While this article provides general legal information, it does not constitute legal advice. The best way to get guidance on your specific legal issue is to contact a lawyer.


Contact Us

By submitting this form you agree to receive text messages.

By Rebecca Rivera December 9, 2025
As reported in the Washington Post December 5th, 2025 by Amudalat Ajasa A prominent scientific journal, Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, has retracted a widely cited 2000 study that previously concluded the active ingredient in Roundup, glyphosate, posed no cancer risk to humans. The retraction was initiated after evidence emerged suggesting the study was heavily influenced by the herbicide's seller, Monsanto (now owned by Bayer), in an apparent effort to disguise potential health risks. Specific concerns cited by the journal include the strong possibility that Monsanto employees contributed to the writing without proper acknowledgment, that the authors may have received undisclosed payments from the company , and that the findings were based solely on unpublished Monsanto studies. This misconduct, discovered through internal company emails during federal litigation, is significant because the faulty research served as a bedrock for regulatory decisions regarding glyphosate for decades. Summary of Alleged Faulty Study and Monsanto's Influence The Study and Its Conclusion: The retracted paper, published in 2000, was a "bedrock study" that concluded: "under present and expected conditions of new use, there is no potential for Roundup herbicide to pose a health risk to humans." The Retraction: The scientific journal retracted the study due to a loss of confidence in its results and conclusions, citing the need to "maintain the integrity of the journal." Evidence of Undisclosed Influence: The co-editor in chief cited evidence suggesting that Monsanto employees "may have contributed to the writing of the article without proper acknowledgment as co authors." Undisclosed Payments: The retraction also noted that the study's authors may have been paid by Monsanto without disclosing it . Basis of Findings: The journal stated that the study's findings about cancer risk were "solely based on unpublished studies from Monsanto." Discovery of Influence: Monsanto's influence over the study was reportedly discovered through internal emails released during federal litigation against the company in 2017. Impact: The study "had a significant impact on regulatory decision-making regarding glyphosate and Roundup for decades," and was one of the most-cited papers on glyphosate safety, underpinning federal regulations for the pesticide. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) even cited it in its 2016 review of glyphosate. Context and Aftermath Bayer's Defense: Bayer (which acquired Monsanto in 2018) defended the chemical's safety and argued that Monsanto's involvement was appropriately cited in the acknowledgments, stating that glyphosate is the most extensively studied herbicide and that the "vast majority of published studies on glyphosate had no Monsanto involvement." Regulatory Stance: The EPA stated the retraction would not affect its current stance —which is that glyphosate is "not likely to be carcinogenic to humans"—because the agency does not directly rely on review articles like this one, but uses them to find other relevant individual studies. Litigation: Bayer has spent approximately $10 billion to settle lawsuits arguing the company did not warn customers about the negative health impacts of using Roundup. Read the full article in the Washington Post
By Rebecca Rivera November 14, 2025
In this series premiere episode, Founder & President of SOSCSA, Child Sexual Abuse Survivor & BSA Bankruptcy Claimant, Curtis Garrison interviews attorney Jason J Joy for an update on the BSA bankruptcy and discussing childhood abuse litigation for which Jason is an outspoken and experienced advocate. Jason's firm is actively litigating cases for many clients his law firm represents. This podcast is recommended for clients already represented, and for those who are still contemplating coming forward to establish a claim. Topics covered in this episode: Recent BSA Bankruptcy Trust report Lajun Claimants (Guam) v. Boy Scouts of America and their recent Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court The 1.5% initial payment, possible second payment time / total percentage Future Claims, BSA Councils, BSA Charters (churches, schools, etc) which there are over 100,000 entities possibly getting free of liability Mixed Claims explained We did not vote for this plan, they promised we would be paid in “Paid in Full” Plans to file an Amicus Brief Statute of Limitations 
By Rebecca Rivera November 6, 2025
The Boy Scouts of America bankruptcy case, involving tens of thousands of survivors of childhood sexual abuse, is among the largest and most contentious mass tort proceedings in U.S. history. In this podcast, Attorney Jason Joy breaks down the latest ruling from the Third Circuit Court, which leaves many survivors of childhood sexual abuse with drastically underfunded compensation.