{"id":1685,"date":"2024-05-13T10:32:58","date_gmt":"2024-05-13T10:32:58","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/freeseandgoss.com\/?page_id=1685"},"modified":"2026-11-04T15:41:06","modified_gmt":"2026-11-04T15:41:06","slug":"demandas-por-cancer-de-pelo","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/freeseandgoss.com\/es\/masstorts-practice-areas\/hair-relaxer-cancer-lawsuits\/","title":{"rendered":"Demandas por c\u00e1ncer de alisador capilar"},"content":{"rendered":"\n\t\t
<\/div><\/div><\/div>
\n\t
\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t

Hair Relaxer Cancer Lawsuits<\/h1>\n\t\t\t<\/div> \n\t\t<\/div>\n\t<\/div> \n<\/div><\/div>\n\t\t
<\/div><\/div><\/div>
\n\t
\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t

Hair Straightener or Relaxer Cancer Lawsuits<\/h2>\n
\n\t
\n\t\t

If you used a hair straightening or relaxing product, chances are you have been exposed to cancer-causing chemicals<\/span>.<\/span><\/p>\n

\"BestA lawsuit was recently filed in the Northern District of Illinois against L\u2019Oreal USA, Inc., Products, Namaste Laboratories, Inc., Strength of Nature Global, LLC, Soft Sheen Carson (W.I.), Inc., Dabur International Ltd. and Dabur USA, Inc. on behalf of a woman who regularly used chemical hair straightener products manufactured, marketed, and sold by these companies, and who was diagnosed with uterine cancer, requiring hysterectomy, at the age of 28.<\/p>\n

We anticipate that numerous additional lawsuits against these companies will be filed in the coming months.<\/p>\n\t<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Study Shows Connection Between Uterine Cancer and Chemical Hair Straighteners or Relaxers Use<\/h2>\n
\n\t
\n\t\t

A new study published October 17, 2022, in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute highlights the increased risk of uterine cancer among women who use hair straightening or relaxing products.<\/p>\n

The study conducted by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (\u201cNIEHS study\u201d) tracked data from approximately 34,000 women for more than a decade and found that frequent users of chemical hair straightening\/relaxing products, defined as using the products four times a year, were more than twice as likely to develop uterine cancer by age 70 than women who did not use those products.<\/p>\n

Although the study did not specify the specific brands of chemical straighteners\/relaxers used by the women involved in the study, the increased risk of uterine cancer was applicable to women who used chemical hair straighteners\/relaxers. Chemical hair straighteners\/relaxers typically contain products associated with higher cancer risk, including formaldehyde, metals, phthalates,
\nand parabens, which may be more easily absorbed by the body through scalp burns and abrasions often caused by chemical straighteners\/relaxers.<\/p>\n\t<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Increased Uterine Cancer Risk Among Black Women<\/h2>\n
\n\t
\n\t\t

Studies have shown that black women are diagnosed with uterine cancer at a higher rate than any other race. This increased risk of black women developing uterine cancer is reflected by the results of the recent NIEHS study.<\/p>\n

Specifically, despite black women making up only 7.4% of the study\u2019s participants, they made up 59.9% of those who reported using chemical hair straighteners\/relaxers. Black women make up the primary consumer demographic for chemical hair straighteners and relaxers. This demographic not only consumes these products more than women of other races, but they use them much earlier in their lives, increasing the amount and duration of exposure to the harmful chemicals.<\/p>\n\t<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

October 2026 Legal Update: Major Victory for Scientific Evidence<\/h2>\n
\n\t
\n\t\t

On October 22, 2026, the federal judge handling the combined chemical hair relaxer lawsuits issued an important decision. This decision focuses on a basic question: can chemical hair relaxers cause uterine or ovarian cancer in humans?<\/span><\/p>\n

Under legal rules (Federal Rule of Evidence 702), the judge acts like a gatekeeper. The judge’s job is to make sure expert witnesses base their opinions on careful science before talking to a jury. The hair relaxer companies asked the court to block the main scientific experts, claiming their research was not reliable.<\/span><\/p>\n

The judge turned down the companies’ main requests and set important rules for these cases:<\/span><\/p>\n

The Whole Product Counts<\/span><\/h3>\n

The product makers argued that plaintiffs must pinpoint single chemicals in isolation or prove a specific chemical “recipe”. The judge disagreed. The court ruled that scientists can evaluate the hair relaxer as a whole finished product. This allows experts to show how groups of chemicals, such as endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs), formaldehyde, and phthalates, work together in the body to raise cancer risks.<\/span><\/p>\n

Judges vs. Juries<\/span><\/h3>\n

The judge clarified that a court only checks if a scientist used proper research methods. A court does not decide who is ultimately right. Any debates about study limits or different medical opinions belong in front of a jury during a trial.<\/span><\/p>\n

Key Expert Testimony Approved<\/span><\/h3>\n

In complex lawsuits involving medical conditions and chemical exposure, jury members rely on expert witnesses, such as doctors, toxicologists, and scientific researchers, to help them understand complicated science.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Before a case can go to trial, a court must decide if these scientists are using real, trusted research methods. If a judge blocks an expert, a jury never gets to hear their evidence. That is why this ruling was such an important step forward.<\/span><\/p>\n