Olaplex Lawsuit Filed Over Problems with Hair Loss, Scalp Burns, Other Injuries

A group of 28 women have joined together to file a lawsuit against the makers of Olaplex, claiming that the popular hair care products contain dangerous chemicals, which may result in thinning hair, bald spots and scalp injuries.

The complaint (PDF) was filed on February 9 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, involving plaintiffs from multiple states, each raising allegations that Olaplex Holdings, Inc. and Cosway Co., Inc. failed to disclose the risk of Olaplex problems, and that the hair care products contain dangerous chemicals, such as benzene.

Benzene is an industrial chemical that has long been linked to fatal forms of leukemia and other cancers such as AML, Chronic Myelogenous Leukemia (CML), Acute Lymphocytic Leukemia (ALL), Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL), Hairy Cell Leukemia (HCL), Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma, Multiple Myeloma, Myelodysplastic Syndrome (MDL), Myelofibrosis and Myeloid Metaplasia, Aplastic Anemia and Thrombocytopenic Purpura.

Olaplex Hair Products Lawsuit

The Olaplex lawsuit indicates the manufacturer advertises that its hair care products do not contain harsh or harmful chemicals, such as silicone, sulfates, phthalates, DEA, aldehydes, formaldehyde, gluten, parabens, and that ingredients used in the formulations are safe for all hair. However, the plaintiffs allege these claims are false and misleading, as Olaplex products have been found to contain other harsh chemicals, including benzene, lilial and panthenol, among other unnecessarily dangerous chemicals, allergens and irritants.

“Many varieties of the Products contain sodium benzoate and ascorbic and/or citric acid,” the lawsuit states. “These chemicals combine to create the molecule benzene.”

While Olaplex continues to market its products as a safe hair treatment solution for women to restore damage and compromised hair, the lawsuit claims thousands of consumers have used these products and experienced hair loss or destruction of hair. Despite the complaints, the manufacturer has failed to formally issue any Olaplex recall due to the problems, and has made matters worse by actively concealing the harsh ingredients, and number of reported side experienced by consumers, plaintiffs claim.

The Olaplex lawsuit presents claims of negligence, gross negligence, failure to warn, false advertising and several other claims, requesting a jury trial to determine the award of both compensatory and punitive damages.

Hair Relaxer Cancer Lawsuits

The complaint comes amid growing concerns about risks associated with chemicals in a number of widely used hair care products, and a growing number of hair relaxer cancer lawsuits being filed following the publication of recent research that found undisclosed endocrine disrupting chemicals in the chemical straighteners may cause uterine cancer, ovarian cancer and other injuries.

In October, researchers published findings in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, which warned about the chemical hair relaxer cancer risks, finding that the rate of uterine cancer was nearly three times greater among women who frequently used hair relaxer chemicals, compared to women who never used the products.

The findings have ignited a series of hair relaxer uterine cancer lawsuits and ovarian cancer lawsuits to be filed by women across the U.S., claiming decades of using hair relaxers with undisclosed chemical ingredients have caused them to develop hormone sensitive cancers.

Given similar questions of fact and law raised in a growing number of complaints filed throughout the federal court system, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) recently determined that all hair relaxer and perm cancer lawsuits will be centralized before one judge for coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings in the federal court system. However, if the parties fail to reach settlements to resolve large numbers of claims, each case may be remanded back to the U.S. District Court where it was originally filed for a separate trial date in the future.