IN RE: Hair Relaxer Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation
Before the Panel: Plaintiffs in four actions pending in the Northern District of Illinois and the Northern District of California move under
On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing session held, we find that these actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Northern District of Illinois will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. On October 17, 2022, a study led by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) reported findings that women who frequently used chemical hair straightening or hair relaxer products were more than twice as likely to develop uterine cancer as women who did not use such products. These actions, filed shortly thereafter, share common questions of fact arising from allegations that defendants’ hair relaxer products contain phthalates, including di-2-ethylhexylphthalate, or other endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs), and that the use of such products caused or increased the risk of developing uterine, ovarian, or breast cancer, endometriosis, uterine fibroids, or other injuries to the reproductive system. All actions share common issues of fact regarding whether exposure to phthalates or other EDCs causes injury to the reproductive system, whether and when defendants knew or should have known of the alleged risks posed by hair relaxer products, and whether defendants engaged in adequate testing and post-market surveillance. Plaintiffs assert overlapping products liability claims and consumer protection claims.
Centralization will obviate the risk of duplicative discovery and inconsistent rulings on pretrial issues such as what level of exposure to phthalates or other EDCs poses a risk of reproductive injury, and what obligation, if any, defendants had to disclose the presence of such chemicals in their hair relaxer products. The parties in all actions are likely to use many of the same experts, particularly with respect to the risks of exposure to phthalates or other EDCs. Centralization will minimize duplication of this expert discovery as well as pretrial motion practice related to expert issues. It also will prevent inconsistent rulings with respect to class certification.3
Defendants argue that the actions involve numerous disparate questions of fact and that centralization will provide few efficiencies. They point out that the actions name multiple competing defendants who manufactured and sold different lines of hair relaxer products, and that plaintiffs allege multiple different injuries. They contend as well that plaintiffs have not identified a single EDC common to all hair relaxer products that is alleged to have caused the injuries at issue. We acknowledge that, to some extent, the claims against the various defendants may turn on facts specific to the defendants and their products, and that in some instances we have been hesitant to centralize litigation against competing defendants that marketed, manufactured, and sold similar products. In the circumstances presented here, however, we conclude that centralization will allow this litigation to be managed most efficiently and will best serve the convenience of the parties, witnesses, and courts. Since the filing of the motion, this litigation has grown from nine actions pending in four districts to 53 involved actions in nineteen districts. Most of the actions name multiple sets of defendants, and nearly all name the L‘Oreal defendants. In addition, most plaintiffs allege
Our decision here is in keeping with past decisions in similar circumstances. For example, in In re Androgel Products Liability Litigation, 24 F. Supp. 3d 1378 (J.P.M.L. 2014), we centralized actions against multiple competing manufacturers, noting that, “in the actions and potential tag-along actions already filed, a number of plaintiffs used more than one testosterone replacement therapy,” and that centralization of only certain claims or the attempt to separate claims against separate manufacturers would “prove too procedurally complicated” and in any event “might result in a de facto industry-wide centralization as cases involving multiple drugs become part of the MDL.” Id. at 1379. See also In re Incretin Mimetics Prods. Liab. Litig., 968 F. Supp. 2d 1345, 1346 (J.P.M.L. 2013) (centralizing actions against competing manufacturers of four similar diabetes drugs that allegedly caused pancreatic cancer where “[s]everal plaintiffs took more than one of the drugs at issue“).4
We conclude that the Northern District of Illinois is an appropriate transferee district. Sixteen of the involved actions are pending there and the district is not opposed or is supported, at least in the alternative, by all responding plaintiffs and is supported, in the alternative, by all responding defendants. The Honorable Mary M. Rowland, to whom we assign the litigation, presides over two of the involved actions and is a highly capable jurist with the ability and willingness to manage the proceedings efficiently. We are confident that she will steer this matter on a prudent course.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the actions listed on Schedule A and pending outside the Northern District of Illinois are transferred to the Northern District of Illinois and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Mary M. Rowland for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.
PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
Karen K. Caldwell
Chair
| Nathaniel M. Gorton | Matthew F. Kennelly |
| David C. Norton | Roger T. Benitez |
| Dale A. Kimball | Madeline Cox Arleo |
IN RE: HAIR RELAXER MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION
MDL No. 3060
SCHEDULE A
Northern District of California
BHONOPHA v. L‘OREAL U.S.A., INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 3:22-06395
GAMBLE v. STRENGTH OF NATURE GLOBAL, LLC, ET AL., C.A. No. 4:22-00256
LEE v. STRENGTH OF NATURE GLOBAL, LLC, ET AL., C.A. No. 4:22-00257
Northern District of Illinois
MITCHELL v. L‘OREAL USA, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:22-05815
GORDON v. L‘OREAL USA, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:22-06033
SMITH v. L‘OREAL USA, INC., C.A. No. 1:22-06047
WILLIAMS, ET AL. v. L‘OREAL USA, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:22-06110
GRANT v. L‘OREAL USA, INC., C.A. No. 1:22-06113
Southern District of New York
TERRELL v. REVLON CONSUMER PRODUCTS CORP., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:22-09008