Walgreens and CVS have withdrawn the main lawsuit over hair straighteners
In complex product liability litigation involving a large number of people making similar claims and allegations, the court will often approve a class action and a summary action. This summary action allows plaintiffs to file future lawsuits detailing allegations relevant to their specific claim.
Judge Rowland last year allowed master and short form actions in hair straightening lawsuits and issued a direct filing order that allows future lawsuits to be filed immediately in MDL court regardless of the district court of the plaintiff’s residence.
The lead complaint contains lists of products, defendants, and injuries commonly cited in most hair relaxer lawsuits filed, while giving plaintiffs the opportunity to consider which of these apply to their individual claims. The current list of defendants consists primarily of cosmetics manufacturers.
In an August 12 status report (PDF), the Plaintiffs Leadership Committee (PLC) informed Judge Rowland that it would not seek to add the Walmart or CVS pharmacy chains to the main lawsuit, noting that the pharmacy chains are each named in only one hair-relaxant lawsuit.
If individuals wish to include claims against Walmart or CVS in their hair straightener lawsuits, the PLC suggests manually adding the retailers as defendants in existing brief complaints.
Talks about claims for non-uterine, uterine or ovarian cancer stall
On the same day, a filing (PDF) shows that the parties are still at an impasse over the proposed dismissal of hair-relaxant-related claims that do not involve ovarian, uterine or cervical cancer. As the plaintiffs’ lead group said earlier this year, this will not find support in the current litigation.
In June 2023, Revlon, a major cosmetics manufacturer named in a series of hair straightener lawsuits, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, leading to a flood of lawsuits from women who suspected they had uterine, endometrial or ovarian cancer, hoping to file their cases before bankruptcy protection barred them from doing so. Many of these women later discovered that they had not been diagnosed with any of the three cancers currently at the center of MDL’s hair straightener lawsuit.
Plaintiffs and defendants are currently exploring a settlement that would allow for a voluntary dismissal of these lawsuits without prejudice. This would allow the women to refile their lawsuits in the future if they are diagnosed with any of the three types of cancer at issue in the litigation or if new evidence emerges.
The parties have entered into discussions to resolve their differences over the proposal, but the court states that the parties have been unable to reach an agreement “after numerous good faith meetings and discussions.” As such, Judge Rowland indicated that if a trial is necessary to resolve the issue, it will be scheduled sometime after August 29.
