This article provides educational information. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Consult with a qualified attorney regarding your specific situation.
One of the central legal theories in the hair relaxer litigation is the failure to warn claim. These claims allege that manufacturers knew, or should have known, about the potential health risks of their products and chose not to disclose those risks to the millions of women who used them. Understanding how this legal theory works is essential to understanding why these lawsuits exist and what plaintiffs must prove.
What Is a Failure to Warn Claim?
Product manufacturers have a legal duty to warn consumers of known risks that are not obvious and that would affect a reasonable person's decision to use the product. This duty extends not only to risks the manufacturer actually knows about but also to risks it reasonably should have identified through adequate safety testing and monitoring. To succeed on a failure to warn claim, a plaintiff must establish that the manufacturer knew or should have known about the risk, that the warning provided was inadequate, and that an adequate warning would have changed the plaintiff's behavior in a way that prevented the harm.
What the Lawsuits Allege Manufacturers Knew
The hair relaxer lawsuits allege that manufacturers possessed internal information about the potential health effects of their chemical formulations, including awareness of the scientific literature on endocrine-disrupting chemicals, and that this information was never shared with consumers. Through the discovery process, plaintiffs' attorneys have sought access to internal safety studies, regulatory correspondence, adverse event reports, and communications among company scientists. Plaintiffs allege the resulting documentary record will show that warnings were not omitted by oversight, but by choice.
Obtaining these internal documents has been a significant point of contention in the MDL. Plaintiffs have filed motions to compel certain defendants, including L'Oreal USA and Strength of Nature, to produce documents about product safety and formulation. These documents, once produced, will form a critical part of the evidentiary foundation for the failure to warn claims at trial.
The Absence of Meaningful Warnings
For most of the period during which the products at issue were marketed, chemical hair relaxer labels contained no warnings about cancer risk or hormonal effects. Ingredient lists were often incomplete or difficult for consumers to interpret. Marketing materials emphasized efficacy and suitability for home use, including use on children, without disclosing information that might have prompted consumers to reconsider. The lawsuits allege that manufacturers actively leveraged cultural and social pressures to build a loyal consumer base while withholding information that could have influenced the choices those consumers made.
The Regulatory Context
Unlike pharmaceuticals, cosmetic products including hair relaxers historically did not require pre-market safety approval from the Food and Drug Administration. Manufacturers were not required to demonstrate safety before marketing, and the agency's authority to require warning labels was more limited. The Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act of 2022 has since expanded the FDA's authority over cosmetic safety, and the agency has proposed restrictions on formaldehyde-releasing compounds in hair products. These regulatory developments provide additional context for the litigation, confirming that the concerns underlying the lawsuits have drawn serious attention at the federal level.
Proving Causation Through the Warning
Courts have developed different approaches for establishing that an inadequate warning caused harm, recognizing the difficulty of asking a plaintiff to reconstruct a past decision they never had the information to make. In many jurisdictions, a plaintiff may establish warning causation by demonstrating that a reasonable person in their position would have found the risk information material to their decision, not that they would have necessarily stopped using the product entirely, but that they might have used it differently, sought monitoring, or taken protective steps. This standard reflects the reality that consumers respond to safety information in a range of ways, all of which can be relevant to causation.
Ready to Discuss Your Case?
Contact us today for a free, confidential consultation. Call 855-758-7949 or visit shatterfirm.com/contact. No fees unless we win.