Hair relaxer lawsuits, part of a major multidistrict litigation, are moving toward trial in 2025. Expert testimony is playing a central role in how courts assess product safety, causation, and regulatory responsibility. With potential links to cancer and health risks under review, the outcome could reshape mass tort and product liability standards.
As hair relaxer lawsuits move closer to trial, the spotlight is on the experts shaping how courts define “product safety” in modern litigation.
Product liability law is evolving—and fast.
One of the most closely watched legal developments of 2025 is the growing wave of hair relaxer lawsuits, now consolidated into a sweeping multidistrict litigation (MDL) in the Northern District of Illinois.
This MDL is shaping up to be one of the most consequential product liability cases we’ve seen in years. What sets it apart is the combination of scientific uncertainty and cultural context. Courts will need to grapple not just with causation, but with how these products were marketed—and to whom. In speaking with attorneys on both sides, we’re hearing that expert strategy is already driving settlement posture and early discovery priorities.
At issue: whether manufacturers of chemical hair straightening products can be held accountable for long-term health consequences, including claims linking these products to cancer and other serious conditions.
As these cases advance through pretrial proceedings, expert testimony is emerging as the fulcrum of the litigation—affecting everything from motions to dismiss to how juries evaluate risk, causation, and regulatory duty.
From Scientific Signal to Legal Scrutiny: A Timeline
The litigation gained national momentum following a 2022 NIH study that identified a potential link between long-term use of hair relaxers and an elevated risk of uterine cancer, particularly among Black women.
In early 2023, plaintiffs began filing claims alleging that manufacturers failed to warn consumers of these risks. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated over 100 of these cases into MDL 3060, a number that has since grown into the thousands, with new filings continuing across multiple jurisdictions.
Key milestones in the litigation include:
- February 2023: MDL formally established under Judge Mary Rowland
- Mid-2023: Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee appointed; discovery begins
- 2024: Initial Daubert hearings scheduled to assess admissibility of expert evidence
- Q4 2025: First bellwether trials anticipated
Why These Cases Hinge on Expert Testimony
Toxic tort and product liability cases involving personal care products demand more than anecdotal evidence or surface-level science. Courts require a rigorous showing of both general causation and specific causation.
Admissible expert testimony must:
- Demonstrate a biologically plausible mechanism of harm
- Distinguish between correlation and true causation
- Evaluate exposure levels relative to scientifically established thresholds
- Address alternative causes and potential confounders with clarity
Relax… and Leave It to the Experts
At AP Expert Group, we understand what it takes to succeed in complex mass tort and product liability cases.
Our expert network includes:
- Board-certified toxicologists, oncologists, and epidemiologists
- Labeling and regulatory experts with FDA and consumer product experience
- Statistical analysts and exposure modelers trained to withstand Daubert scrutiny
From early case evaluation and deposition prep to expert reports and trial testimony, our professionals are more than qualified—they’re persuasive, courtroom-tested communicators.
Join the Conversation
Have you worked on a mass tort or product safety case where expert testimony shaped the outcome? Or are you following how emerging science is reshaping litigation strategy?
We’d love to hear your perspective.