Minnesota sues L'Oréal over hair relaxer cancer warnings

Estimated reading time: 10 minutes.

Key facts

• What happened: Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison sued L'Oréal and four related companies over chemical hair relaxers. The complaint is dated October 22, 2026, and his office announced the suit on October 23.
• The court: Hennepin County District Court, part of Minnesota's Fourth Judicial District.
• Brands named: Dark and Lovely, Optimum and Mizani, plus Bantu, Care Free Curl, Look of Radiance and Ultra Precise, and a children's line called Dark and Lovely Beautiful Beginnings.
• The core claim: Minnesota says L'Oréal marketed relaxers to Black women and girls as safe, gentle and healthy while failing to disclose studies linking frequent relaxer use to higher rates of uterine and ovarian cancer.
• What the state wants: A court order barring sales without adequate health warnings, restitution or disgorgement, civil penalties and attorneys' fees.
• L'Oréal's response: The company told the Minnesota Star Tribune it is "confident in the safety of SoftSheen-Carson's products" and believes the allegations have "neither legal nor scientific merit."
• For consumers: This is a state enforcement case, not a class action. There is no claim form or deadline.

In this article

• What the lawsuit is about
• Who is being sued
• How chemical hair relaxers work
• The studies at the center of the case
• The marketing Minnesota says was misleading
• The three Minnesota laws involved
• How this fits with the federal hair relaxer lawsuits
• Timeline
• What happens next
• What remains unclear
• Frequently asked questions

What the lawsuit is about

A chemical hair relaxer is a cream applied to the hair near the scalp to permanently straighten tightly curled or coiled hair. Minnesota's 34-page complaint says L'Oréal and its subsidiaries have sold these products in the state since as early as the 1970s, marketing them to Black and Brown women and girls as a safe way to straighten naturally textured hair.

The state's case is about disclosure. It argues that L'Oréal knew about published research associating frequent relaxer use with certain cancers, did not tell Minnesota consumers, and kept describing the products as "healthy," "gentle," "natural" and "nourishing."

"It's outrageous that L'Oréal marketed these products to Black women and girls as safe when they knew they were not and had a duty to disclose they were not," Ellison said in the announcement. He added that women "have a right to choose the products they want to use," but that "those products must be safe."

The case was filed by the attorney general's office with outside counsel from DiCello Levitt LLP of Chicago.

This is a consumer deception case, not an injury lawsuit Minnesota is not suing on behalf of people diagnosed with cancer. It says L'Oréal broke consumer protection laws by marketing without adequate warnings. Women who believe a relaxer caused their illness bring separate personal-injury lawsuits.

Who is being sued

The complaint names five companies:

• L'Oréal S.A., the French parent company, headquartered in Clichy, France. The state says it owns the U.S. relaxer formulations, secured the patent for the products and directed how its American subsidiaries marketed them.
• L'Oréal USA, Inc. and L'Oréal USA Products, Inc., the U.S. operating companies.
• L'Oréal USA S/D, Inc., which the complaint describes as the name under which the defendants are registered to do business in Minnesota.
• SoftSheen-Carson LLC, the L'Oréal-owned hair care business behind several relaxer brands.

The complaint treats all five together and asks that they be held jointly and severally liable. That means the court could hold any one of them responsible for the full amount of any judgment.

How chemical hair relaxers work

According to the complaint, relaxers are highly alkaline, hydroxide-based products. They work by breaking and re-forming the disulfide bonds in keratin, the protein that gives hair its shape. The product is left on the hair for a timed period and then rinsed out.

Because new hair grows in with its natural texture, users must reapply relaxer to the roots on a regular schedule. The complaint calls this a "retouch" and says many users begin in childhood and continue for years.

The complaint also alleges:

• The scalp absorbs chemicals more readily than skin on the arms, palms or abdomen, and burns or lesions from the alkaline formula can weaken the skin's barrier.
• Relaxer products as a category have been found to contain endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) such as phthalates and parabens, and substances such as formaldehyde, 1,4-dioxane and ethylene oxide that federal and international agencies classify as known or probable carcinogens. EDCs are chemicals that can interfere with the body's hormone signals.
• The relaxer market was estimated at $718 million in 2021, and some studies report that up to 90% of Black women have used relaxers or straighteners.

These statements describe relaxers as a class. The complaint does not publish lab tests of specific L'Oréal products.

The studies at the center of the case

The complaint relies on four peer-reviewed epidemiological studies. Epidemiology is the study of how often diseases occur in groups of people and what factors are linked to them. Two large long-running studies supplied the data:

• The Sister Study, run by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, enrolled 50,884 U.S. women aged 35 to 74 between 2003 and 2009, each with a sister who had breast cancer.
• The Black Women's Health Study, run by Boston University since 1995, enrolled more than 59,000 Black women aged 21 to 69.

As described in the complaint:

• White Study (2021). Using data from 40,559 Sister Study participants, researchers found frequent relaxer use was associated with about twice the risk of ovarian cancer.
• Chang Study (October 2022). Among 33,497 Sister Study participants, frequent use of chemical straighteners or relaxers was associated with a doubling of uterine cancer risk.
• Bertrand Study (2023). Black Women's Health Study researchers found long-term relaxer use was associated with a 60% higher risk of uterine cancer among postmenopausal women, rising to 71% for those who used relaxers for 20 or more years.
• Bailey Study (2025). Sister Study researchers found a 71% higher risk of thyroid cancer and a 166% higher risk of pancreatic cancer among women who used chemical straighteners in the year before enrolling, compared with women who did not.

What these percentages mean The figures are relative risks. A 60% higher risk means the rate of a disease was 60% higher in one group than in another, not that 60% of users developed cancer. These studies found associations. L'Oréal disputes that the science supports the state's claims, and no court in this case has decided whether relaxers cause cancer.

The complaint alleges L'Oréal had "actual knowledge" of each study when it was published and kept selling and marketing the products in Minnesota without disclosing the findings.

The marketing Minnesota says was misleading

The complaint reproduces ads and packaging that it says created a false "net impression" of safety. Examples it cites include claims that products give hair a "healthy-gloss," preserve "healthy hair," "defy breakage" and produce "stronger smoother hair."

The state focuses on the Dark and Lovely Beautiful Beginnings line for children. It says some of those products claimed to straighten "gently," and that one ad promised a child could "achieve soft & straight hair without hurting [their] scalp." Another, according to the complaint, promised the "best protection" and said it would keep "your little girl's hair strong and healthy."

Minnesota also quotes L'Oréal's corporate statements that it adheres to the "highest standards of safety" and will "guarantee the product safety of each and every one of their products."

The lawsuit is not a recall Minnesota is asking a court to require warnings, not ordering products off shelves. Anyone with health questions about relaxer use should talk to a doctor.

The three Minnesota laws involved

• Prevention of Consumer Fraud Act (Minn. Stat. 325F.69). Bans fraud, misrepresentation and deceptive practices in sales, and under a definition in the statute, unfair or unconscionable practices. The state says L'Oréal omitted cancer risks, misrepresented the products as safe and sold them without substantiating their safety.
• Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act (Minn. Stat. 325D.44). Bans representing that goods have characteristics or benefits they do not have, among other practices.
• False Statement in Advertising Act (Minn. Stat. 325F.67). Makes it unlawful to publish advertising containing untrue, deceptive or misleading material claims.

The attorney general brings the case under Minnesota Statutes section 8.31, which lets the state seek injunctions and a civil penalty set by the court of up to $25,000, and under parens patriae authority. Parens patriae is a legal doctrine that lets a state sue to protect the well-being of its residents. The complaint asks for the maximum penalty against each defendant for each violation and argues that each sale or offer of a relaxer is a separate violation.

How this fits with the federal hair relaxer lawsuits

Thousands of women have filed personal-injury lawsuits against relaxer makers, including L'Oréal, alleging the products caused uterine, ovarian or other cancers. In February 2023, a federal panel centralized those cases before U.S. District Judge Mary M. Rowland in the Northern District of Illinois as MDL No. 3060. An MDL, or multidistrict litigation, groups similar federal cases before one judge for pretrial work.

A joint status report filed in that court in June 2026 shows plaintiffs moved for class certification on March 26, 2026, and that both sides were briefing motions on whether expert testimony about general causation can be used at trial. General causation is the question of whether a product can cause a disease at all. No trial or global settlement had been reported in that litigation when we checked.

Minnesota's case is separate and in state court. It does not depend on the MDL's outcome, though the scientific dispute overlaps.

Timeline

What happens next

L'Oréal will be served and must respond to the complaint. Companies in state consumer protection cases often move to dismiss, argue that federal law governs cosmetic labeling, or challenge the science behind the claims. L'Oréal S.A., as a French company, could also contest whether a Minnesota court has jurisdiction over it.

If the case moves forward, the parties would enter discovery, where the state could seek internal documents about what the companies knew about the studies. A court would decide later whether warnings are required and whether penalties or restitution are owed.

What remains unclear

• The court file number. The published complaint leaves it blank.
• Which products are still sold. The complaint lists brands but does not say which relaxers remain on Minnesota shelves today.
• What the products contain. The chemical allegations describe relaxers as a category, not tested L'Oréal formulas.
• Causation. Whether relaxers cause cancer is disputed and is being litigated in the federal MDL.
• Money for consumers. The state asks for restitution "for all persons injured," but any payment would depend on a court ruling or a settlement.

This article is for information only and is not legal advice. Anyone with health concerns should talk to a doctor, and anyone considering a legal claim should consult a licensed attorney. For cases consumers can act on now, see our list of class action cases you can join.

Frequently asked questions

Why is Minnesota suing L'Oréal?

Minnesota says L'Oréal marketed chemical hair relaxers as safe and healthy while failing to disclose studies linking frequent use to higher rates of uterine and ovarian cancer, in violation of three state consumer protection laws.

Which hair relaxer brands are named in the lawsuit?

The complaint names Dark and Lovely, Optimum, Mizani, Bantu, Care Free Curl, Look of Radiance and Ultra Precise, and the Dark and Lovely Beautiful Beginnings children's line.

Can I join the Minnesota lawsuit?

No. It is an enforcement case brought by the state, not a class action. People who believe a relaxer harmed their health would need to pursue separate claims, usually with an attorney.

Do hair relaxers cause cancer?

Studies cited in the complaint found associations between frequent relaxer use and higher rates of some cancers. L'Oréal disputes the scientific basis of the claims, and courts have not decided the causation question.

What did L'Oréal say?

A L'Oréal USA spokesperson told the Minnesota Star Tribune that consumer health is the company's highest priority and that the allegations have "neither legal nor scientific merit."

What is Minnesota asking the court to order?

An order stopping sales without adequate health warnings, restitution or disgorgement, the maximum civil penalties under state law, attorneys' fees and interest.