Formation of the MDL
In February 2023, federal lawsuits alleging that chemical hair relaxers caused cancer were consolidated into a multidistrict litigation in the Northern District of Illinois. The case is designated In re Hair Relaxer Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 3060, and is assigned to Judge Mary M. Rowland.[1]
A multidistrict litigation, or MDL, is a procedural tool used when many similar cases are filed in different federal courts across the country. The cases are transferred to a single judge who oversees pretrial proceedings, including discovery and motion practice. The goal is to handle common questions of fact efficiently, avoid duplicative work, and prevent inconsistent rulings on the same issues.
The lawsuits in this MDL allege that chemical hair relaxer products caused plaintiffs to develop cancer. No court has ruled on the merits of these allegations.[1]
Bellwether Trial Preparation
Bellwether trials are test cases selected from a larger group of lawsuits. They help the parties and the court understand how juries may respond to the evidence and legal arguments. The results can inform settlement discussions, though they do not bind other plaintiffs or resolve the MDL as a whole.
In this MDL, eligibility for the bellwether trial pool is limited to claims involving uterine, endometrial, or ovarian cancer.[2]
On April 2, 2026, Judge Rowland rejected the bellwether cases that the parties had proposed and instead selected 10 cases herself for the bellwether trial pool.[3] The order does not specify why the judge rejected the parties' proposals or what criteria she used to choose the 10 cases.
Economic Damages Rulings
On June 18, 2026, Judge Rowland issued a ruling that limits which bellwether plaintiffs may pursue certain types of economic damages. According to the order, four of the bellwether plaintiffs may seek out-of-pocket medical expenses, and three may seek lost wages.[4] The ruling does not explain why some plaintiffs were permitted to pursue these damages while others were not, or whether the remaining bellwether plaintiffs may still seek other forms of compensation.
Discovery Stay Lifted for Some Defendants
In August 2026, Judge Rowland lifted a discovery stay that had been in place for a group of defendants. A discovery stay pauses the exchange of documents, depositions, and other fact-gathering activities. In this instance, the stay had been imposed to allow the parties to pursue settlement discussions without the burden and expense of ongoing discovery.
Judge Rowland found that settlement talks involving this group of defendants had not made enough progress to justify keeping those cases paused, and she allowed discovery to resume.[4] The order does not identify which defendants were affected or provide details about the settlement discussions.
Current Case Count and Upcoming Deadlines
As of July 1, 2026, there were 11,877 pending lawsuits in the hair relaxer MDL.[1]
Summary judgment motions and remaining expert motions are due on November 16, 2026. Summary judgment is a request for the court to decide some or all issues in a case without a trial, based on the argument that there is no genuine dispute about the key facts. Expert motions typically involve challenges to the qualifications or opinions of witnesses who will testify about scientific, medical, or technical matters.[1]
The first bellwether trials are expected to begin around 2027.[1] The record we track does not show that specific trial dates have been set.
What Is Not Known Yet
The record we track does not show whether any settlements have been reached in the MDL or in individual cases. It also does not show specific trial dates for the bellwether cases, only that trials are expected around 2027.
The rulings issued so far address pretrial procedures and which plaintiffs may seek certain damages. No court has issued a decision on the merits of the allegations that hair relaxer products caused cancer.
Sources
- In re Hair Relaxer Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 3060 (N.D. Ill.) (2023-02-01). Secondary report: openclassactions.com
- MDL No. 3060 (N.D. Ill.) (2026-02-01). Secondary report: tavrn.ai
- MDL No. 3060 (N.D. Ill.) (2026-04-02). Secondary report: robertkinglawfirm.com
- MDL No. 3060 (N.D. Ill.) (2026-06-18). Secondary report: lawsuit-information-center.com
Litigation facts on this page come from the TortIntel litigation record and the documents linked above. Last checked against that record on 2026-10-24. If you see an error, tell us and we will correct it.