Hair Relaxer Litigation Update – Progress and Future Steps

July 1, 2023

Hello again from Jason J. Joy & Associates. We're writing to update you on the ongoing legal proceedings involving hair relaxer products. These lawsuits, now part of a multi-district litigation (MDL), have been filed by women diagnosed with uterine cancer, ovarian cancer, and other health issues, alleging a link between these conditions and hair relaxer use.

Recently, the plaintiffs submitted a "Master Complaint," consolidating all claims related to health problems they attribute to hair relaxer products.

The defendant companies have proposed a "bifurcation" process, splitting the legal proceedings into two stages. The first stage would examine the general link between hair relaxers and cancer. If resolved in favor of the plaintiffs, the second stage would investigate other issues, such as failure to warn about risks, when the companies became aware of these risks, and potential compensation amounts.

Some attorneys oppose this approach, arguing it could prolong the legal process and potentially harm women currently battling cancer. They suggest that the companies aim to dismiss the lawsuits early through this split process.

The Master Complaint accuses several manufacturers, including L’Oréal and Revlon, of knowingly selling harmful hair relaxer products. The plaintiffs allege these companies not only failed to warn about the risks but also specifically targeted women of color and children in their marketing.

Looking forward, Judge Mary Rowland is expected to set a schedule for initial, or "bellwether", trials. However, if the bifurcation process is approved and the lawsuits are dismissed after the first stage, it could be at least four years before the first trial commences.

On July 6, 2023, Judge Rowland is expected to outline the discovery process, where each side gathers evidence.

Despite the legal complexities, the filing of the Master Complaint marks a significant advancement for the plaintiffs. We will continue to monitor these proceedings and provide updates as they unfold. 



We remain committed to keeping you informed and will provide updates as more information becomes available. If your contact information has changed, please reach out to Jason J. Joy & Associates at 713-221-6500. Thank you for your patience and trust in us during this complex process.


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.