Walgreens, CVS Will Not Be Named in Hair Relaxer Lawsuit Master Complaint Over Uterine, Ovarian Cancer Risks

The retailers have only been named in a small number of uterine, endometrial or ovarian cancer lawsuits over hair relaxer side effects

Attorneys representing thousands of women pursuing hair relaxer lawsuits over the development of uterine cancer, endometrial cancer, ovarian cancer and other injuries, have told the U.S. District Judge presiding over the federal MDL that they will not include Walgreens or CVS on a Master Complaint, which outlines all of the allegations being presented against common defendants in the litigation.

For years, popular relaxers like Dark & Lovely, Just for Me and others have been widely marketed to African-American women to help straighten their hair. However, lawsuits are now being pursued against various manufacturers and retailers, alleging that consumers were not adequately warned about serious health risks that may be caused by endocrine disrupting chemicals in the products.

The litigation emerged in late 2022, following the publication of a study that highlighted a link between use of hair relaxer and uterine cancer, finding that women who regularly used the products face a 156% increased risk compared to women who did not use hair relaxers.

Since those findings were released, about 8,000 product liability lawsuits have been brought in the federal court system, where they are currently centralized for discovery and pretrial proceedings before U.S. District Judge Mary Rowland in the Northern District of Illinois, as part of a hair relaxer lawsuit MDL, or multidistrict litigation.

Walgreens, CVS Left Off Hair Relaxer Lawsuit Master Complaint

In complex product liability lawsuits, where large numbers of individuals are pursuing similar claims and allegations, it is common for the Court to approve a Master and Short Form Complaint, where plaintiffs can then file future lawsuits through an abbreviated form, where they adopt allegations that are relevant to their specific claim.

Judge Rowland approved Master and Short Form complaints for hair relaxer lawsuits last year, as well as issued a direct filing order allowing future claims to be filed immediately with the MDL court, regardless of the plaintiff’s home district court.

The Master Complaint includes lists of products, defendants, and injuries that are frequently named throughout most of the hair relaxer lawsuits filed, with plaintiffs given the ability to check which ones are applicable to their individual claims. The current list of defendants primarily consists of cosmetics manufacturers.

In a status report (PDF) issued on August 12, Plaintiffs Leadership Committee (PLC) informed Judge Rowland that it would not seek to include the retail pharmacy chains Walmart or CVS on the Master Complaint. They noted that the pharmacy chains are only named in one hair relaxer lawsuit each.

If any individuals wish to include claims against Walmart or CVS in their hair relaxer lawsuits, the PLC suggested that the retailers can be manually written in as a defendant on the existing Short Form Complaints.

Talks Over Non-Uterine, Endometrial or Ovarian Cancer Claims Stalled

On the same day, a docket entry (PDF) indicates that parties are still at an impasse over the proposed dismissal of hair relaxer lawsuits involving injuries other than ovarian, uterine, or endometrial cancer, which the plaintiffs’ leadership group indicated earlier this year will not be supported in the current litigation.

In June 2023, Revlon, a major cosmetics manufacturer named in a number of the hair relaxer lawsuits, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, which led to a rush of complaints being filed by women who suspected they had uterine, endometrial or ovarian cancer, in hopes of getting their cases submitted before bankruptcy protections blocked their ability to file. Later, many of these women discovered they were not diagnosed with one of these three types of cancer, which are the focus of the hair relaxer lawsuit MDL at this time.

Plaintiffs and defendants have been exploring an agreement to allow the voluntary dismissal of those claims without prejudice at this time, which would allow the women to refile their claims in the future if they are diagnosed with one of the three forms of cancer supported in the litigation, or new evidence emerges.

The parties have engaged in discussions to resolve their differences over the proposal, but the Court indicates that the parties have failed to reach an agreement “after numerous good faith meet−and−confers”. Therefore, Judge Rowland indicated that if arguments before the Court are needed to resolve the issue, they will be scheduled some time after August 29.