Category: Mass Torts

  • PFAS Regulation: EPA Ushers in Next Era of Mass Tort and Environmental Litigation

    PFAS Regulation: EPA Ushers in Next Era of Mass Tort and Environmental Litigation

    The Authors

    David J. Marmins

    David J. MarminsArnall Golden Gregory LLP

    David is a business litigation partner at Arnall Golden Gregory LLP in Atlanta. He is at the forefront of land use law and environmental law in the context of PFAS, currently defending three manufacturers in litigation. He also has extensive experience handling banking and related disputes, and additional experience in complex business litigation, class actions, and medical malpractice defense of hospitals. David started his legal career as civil rights prosecutor and, before law school, as a reporter. He earned his J.D. from Georgia State University College of Law.

    Morgan E.M. Harrison

    Morgan E.M. HarrisonArnall Golden Gregory LLP

    Morgan is a partner at Arnall Golden Gregory LLP where she has represented defendants in PFAS litigation since 2016. Morgan also frequently speaks and writes on the subject. In addition to PFAS, she a member of the firm’s teams dedicated to Litigation & Dispute Resolution, Employment law, Payment Systems and Fintech, and the Background Screening industry. She earned her J.D. from Vanderbilt University School of Law.

    The Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation

    Emerging Litigation Podcast

    Emerging Litigation PodcastProduced by HB Litigation and Law Street Media

    Interviews with leading attorneys and other subject matter experts on new twists in the law and how the law is responding to new twists in the world.

    Forever Chemicals Will Now Be Regulated

    EPA Ushers in New Era of Mass Tort and Environmental Litigation

    An enforceable drinking water standard will be an important tool for plaintiffs. Defendants will no longer be able to assert that they have not violated any federal limitations …. And with more government scrutiny … businesses can expect that the wave of recent PFAS litigation will not only continue but will likely increase across the country. 

    Abstract:

    The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced the long-awaited proposed National Primary Drinking Water Regulation for six per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, known as “PFAS,” on March 14, 2023. The agency anticipates finalizing the regulation by the end of 2023, and claims that it will save thousands of lives and reduce tens of thousands of serious illnesses.

    The EPA has been aware of PFAS since at least the 1990s, when one farmer’s investigation into the chemicals concluded with a seminal lawsuit against multinational chemical company DuPont. A book and subsequent feature film put that lawsuit in the spotlight, and PFAS became mainstream news.

    Today, PFAS claims are widely recognized as the next frontier of mass tort and environmental litigation. With the EPA poised to finally enact the first regulation of these chemicals, that frontier is ripe for exploration.

    This article explores PFAS and the origin of litigation around the substances as well as the state of PFAS litigation and regulation today. It concludes with some thoughts on what to expect when it comes to PFAS litigation going forward.

    Download the article now!

    Loved reading David & Morgan’s Journal Article?

    Listen to their Podcast!

    PFAS Regulation, Litigation, and Differentiation

    Tags

    Emerging Litigation & Risk Compliance Litigation & appeals Cybersecurity Data Privacy Artificial Intelligence (AI) Insurance Companies Risk Management Corporate & Securities Insurance Claims Recovery Regulations Data Breach Toxic Torts Antitrust Legal Tech Product Liability Settlements Trial Personal Injury Privacy Healthcare Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Data Analytics Arbitration Constitutional Law Climate Change Cannabis Labor Law Insurance Fraud Liability Claims COVID Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Mediation Diversity Equity Inclusion (DEI) Claims management Professional Liability Legal Research & Writing Business Interruption Law Practice Management Trial Skills Property and Casualty Drug Laws Copyright Law Catastrophic Loss

  • TVPRA, State Statutes Open Door for Civil Damage Claims by Human-Trafficking Victims

    TVPRA, State Statutes Open Door for Civil Damage Claims by Human-Trafficking Victims

    The Authors

    Coryne Leyendecker

    Coryne Leyendecker Swift, Currie, McGhee & Hiers LLP

    Coryne Leyendecker is an attorney practicing in Swift Currie’s litigation section, defending businesses and insurers against claims related to commercial litigation, sexual abuse, governmental liability, premises liability, automobile litigation and construction law.

    Pamela Lee

    Pamela LeeSwift, Currie, McGhee & Hiers LLP

    Pamela N. Lee is a partner at Swift Currie with more than 15 years of experience practicing in the firm’s litigation section. Pamela devotes her entire practice to litigation, including various tort liability litigation, insurance coverage disputes and the defense of insurance bad faith matters. Her liability practice is wide and varied, encompassing premises liability, product liability, escalator and elevator liability, automobile liability and general personal injury law. She represents companies in the food, automobile and retail industries.

    The Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation

    Emerging Litigation Podcast

    Emerging Litigation PodcastProduced by HB Litigation and Law Street Media

    Interviews with leading attorneys and other subject matter experts on new twists in the law and how the law is responding to new twists in the world.

    TVPRA, State Statutes Open Door for Civil Damage Claims by Human-Trafficking Victims

    “A plethora of nonprofit organizations and government agencies have collectively produced hundreds of available resources on how to help prevent human trafficking. Overwhelmingly, groups across the board agree that bringing awareness to human trafficking is the most foundational method to stopping human trafficking. By implementing intentional training and internal policies, businesses can not only insulate themselves from third-party claims but they can be a force for good in the fight against human trafficking. “

    Abstract: There is not a person alive with a soul that would believe sex trafficking and other variants of modern slavery is a good thing. The individuals that perpetrate those heinous acts should be punished accordingly. In 2003, Congress opened the door for human-trafficking victims to sue for civil damages under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 (TVPRA). Since then the TVPRA and similarly drafted state statutes have allowed for human-trafficking victims to seek civil damages against any party that has benefited from their trafficking. Given this expansive inclusion of third-party liability, more and more businesses, especially those in the hospitality industry, are ultimately the ones left to pay for the criminal acts of human traffickers. This article discusses the evolving litigation around human-trafficking claims, beginning with a broad overview of human trafficking, followed by a discussion of the legal standard behind human-trafficking civil suits and recent guidance from U.S. courts on these types of claims. The article concludes with guidance of its own on how businesses can build a foundation for their own defense while simultaneously helping prevent human-trafficking crimes from ever occurring.

    Download the article now!

    Have an idea for an article?

    If you would like to propose an article for publication in the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation please review our specifications and benefits, then send us a summary, outline, or draft. If you also would like to discuss the topic on the Emerging Litigation Podcast, please note that.

  • Spotting the Risk, Reaping Rewards: Avoiding Increased Antitrust Scrutiny

    Spotting the Risk, Reaping Rewards: Avoiding Increased Antitrust Scrutiny

    The Authors

    Katie Reilly

    Katie ReillyWheeler Trigg O’Donnell LLP

    Katie has favorably represented antitrust clients in matters involving monopolization, conspiracy, price fixing, exclusive dealing, and other competition-related disputes, including trade secrets and non-compete actions. She has extensive knowledge of the regulatory hurdles and obligations her clients face. Katie earned her J.D. from the New York University School of Law, cum laude.

    Natalie West

    Natalie WestWheeler Trigg O’Donnell LLP

    Natalie West represents sophisticated clients in complex commercial disputes. She regularly serves as the lead brief writer in antitrust cases, employment and consumer class actions, and appellate matters. Natalie graduated with high honors from the University of Texas School of Law, where she served as a member of the Texas Law Review and was elected to the Order of the Coif.

    The Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation

    Emerging Litigation Podcast

    Emerging Litigation PodcastProduced by HB Litigation and Law Street Media

    Interviews with leading attorneys and other subject matter experts on new twists in the law and how the law is responding to new twists in the world.

    Avoiding Antitrust Scrutiny

    Spotting the Risk, Reaping Rewards

    The increase in aggressive antitrust enforcement has certainly received significant attention. For the moment, juries are not rewarding the prosecutors. That said, even an unsuccessful government investigation is itself costly and can motivate plaintiffs’ lawyers. Best practices involve not only following the law but also maintaining solid optics to avoid the need for an expensive, if ultimately successful, defense.

    Abstract: 

    A decade ago, few lawyers across the country spent significant time thinking about antitrust law. But, since then, there has been an onslaught of antitrust attacks on businesses and executives across all sectors of the economy. Enforcement efforts have skyrocketed following President Biden’s July 2021 executive order directing a “whole of government” crackdown on competition abuses—and the trend shows no sign of letting up.

    Today, no matter the industry or the size of the business, everyone needs to understand these risks and have strategies to minimize them.

    This article will walk through the top antitrust risks of the moment and conclude with strategies on how to avoid not only violations but also bad optics that increase exposure.

    Download the article now!

  • International Discovery Tool Kit Aims to Facilitate Discovery in Both Domestic and Foreign Litigation

    International Discovery Tool Kit Aims to Facilitate Discovery in Both Domestic and Foreign Litigation

    The Authors

    Benjamin Daniels

    Benjamin DanielsRobinson+Cole

    Benjamin Daniels advises financial institutions and global corporations about litigation and dispute resolution. As a member of the Business Litigation Group, Ben provides creative and ardent advocacy during litigation, enforcement actions, investigations, crisis management, and white-collar defense matters.

    Ben’s clients often face complex, cross-border disputes. He has deep experience with the interplay between domestic and international courts, including discovery disputes and Hague convention proceedings. He also represents clients in international arbitrations and mediations.

    Jenna Scoville

    Jenna ScovilleRobinson+Cole

    Jenna Scoville is a member of the firm’s Business Litigation Group. She focuses her practice on all aspects of general business litigation and dispute resolution, as well as government enforcement matters, and appellate work. She helps companies respond to a variety of business disputes, including claims for breach of contract, unfair trade practices and fraud.

    Jenna also has extensive appellate experience. Prior to joining the firm, she clerked for the Honorable Peter W. Hall of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

    The Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation

    Emerging Litigation Podcast

    Emerging Litigation PodcastProduced by HB Litigation and Law Street Media

    Interviews with leading attorneys and other subject matter experts on new twists in the law and how the law is responding to new twists in the world.

    International Discovery Tool Kit Aims to Facilitate Discovery in Both Domestic and Foreign Litigation

    “At a time when litigants have increasingly relied on U.S. federal courts to obtain otherwise unobtainable evidence from entities located within the United States, the U.S. Supreme Court has decisively closed the door to U.S.-style discovery in private arbitrations abroad. That means U.S. companies will no longer face the time, exposure, and expense of U.S.-style discovery that § 1782 had injected into those proceedings.“

    Abstract: Business knows no borders. Every year companies increase their global reach and open new offices both domestically and abroad. The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated this process—remote employees spread documents and witnesses from Chicago to Shanghai to Sumatra. This has made litigation—especially discovery—more complex. Navigating this environment requires a tool kit of resources to secure discovery in support of both domestic and foreign litigation. This article discusses those tools and several traps for the unwary practitioner facing cross-border discovery to anticipate to effectively use those tools to their benefit.

    When evaluating whether to allow a party to use the Hague Evidence Convention, courts consider several factors, including:

    1) the importance of the documents or information to the case,

    2) the specificity of the request,

    3) whether the information originated in the United States,

    4) the availability of other ways to secure the information, and

    5) whether compliance with the request would undermine important interests of the United States or the foreign country.

    Download the article now!

    Enjoyed reading Ben & Jenna’s article?

    Ben has a podcast exploring the subject more in 2024!

     Podcast: Navigating International Discovery

  • The Use—and Abuse—of Rule 41(a) to Destroy Federal Question Jurisdiction Post-Removal

    The Use—and Abuse—of Rule 41(a) to Destroy Federal Question Jurisdiction Post-Removal

    The Authors

    John Sear

    John SearNelson Mullins

    John defends manufacturers in product liability litigation involving a range of products, e.g., ATVs, RVs, institutional chemicals, medical devices, and pharmaceuticals. From single cases to mass tort litigation and class actions, John has defended clients in courtrooms around the country.

    T. Michael Pangburn

    T. Michael PangburnThor Motor Coach Inc.

    Michael is General Counsel of Thor Motor Coach Inc., a final-stage manufacturer of motor homes headquartered in Elkhart, Indiana. He is also an adjunct professor of commercial law at the Notre Dame Law School.

    Taryn Ryan

    Taryn RyanNelson Mullins

    Taryn focuses her practice on litigation. She has experience dealing with products liability, discovery issues, corporate structure and governance, wealth management, private and commercial lending, real estate, and Indian affairs for lobbying both on state and federal levels. Taryn contributed valuable research to this article.

    The Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation

    Emerging Litigation Podcast

    Emerging Litigation PodcastProduced by HB Litigation and Law Street Media

    Interviews with leading attorneys and other subject matter experts on new twists in the law and how the law is responding to new twists in the world.

    The Use—and Abuse—of Rule 41(a) to Destroy Federal Question Jurisdiction Post-Removal

    “A plaintiff seeking to divest the court of subject matter jurisdiction post-removal should at least comply with the requirements of the rule they have relied on. Glossing over those requirements undermines the purpose and intent of both the rule and removal statutes. The case should stay put in federal court in the absence of compliance.”

    Abstract: Defendants in civil litigation can level the often uneven state court playing field by removing cases to federal court through federal question removal. In those cases in which the plaintiff has alleged a claim grounded in federal law, the defendant may remove the case to an often more impartial federal forum. Once removed, the plaintiff has few options for defeating removal. About the only option available to the plaintiff is to forgo the federal claim and divest the court of federal question jurisdiction, forcing remand to state court. In pursuit of a ticket back to state court, however, plaintiffs routinely misuse Fed. R. Civ. P. 41 in seeking to dismiss fewer than all claims and less than the entire action. Too frequently courts simply go along with the ruse. This article addresses the misuse and abuse of Rule 41. It provides an overview of the text and history of Rule 41, discusses how the rule should be used and applied, analyzes decisions that indulge the misuse, and explains how the misuse can and does prejudice defendants.

    GET THE COMPLETE ARTICLE

  • Hair Relaxer Injury Litigation

    Hair Relaxer Injury Litigation

    Hair Relaxer Injury Litigation with Jennifer Hoekstra

    Last year the Aylstock, Witkin, Kreis & Overholtz law firm filed the first class action against L’Oréal and Softsheen-Carson for injuries, primarily to Black women, allegedly caused by hair relaxers and straighteners.  Now there are more than 60 cases consolidated in multidistrict litigation. 

    Recent studies cited in the litigation show that Black women who use these products develop cancers at a rate disproportionate to that experienced by white women. The plaintiffs say the products are marketed not only to women but to girls as well. The companies challenge the accuracy of the study methods and say, in the case of a key NIH study, that all of women had sisters who were diagnosed with cancer.

    Listen to my interview with veteran mass tort plaintiff attorney Jennifer M. Hoekstra, a partner with Aylstock, Witkin, Kreis & Overholtz. Jennifer boasts an impressive academic and professional record, including graduation from two of the nation’s top schools.  She earned her Bachelor of Arts in Environmental Science from Columbia College, Columbia University in the City of New York. She relocated to Louisiana to attend Tulane Law School, where she earned her J.D. while also completing a certificate in Environmental Law.  During her law school career, she spent a semester studying at the University of Wisconsin School of Law and visited on their International Law Journal as a Junior Member during her Hurricane Katrina evacuation semester.

    This is Jennifer’s second appearance on the podcast. She also was my guest on Greatly Exaggerated: The Impact of Bankruptcy on Mass Tort Litigation.

    *******

    This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation. The Journal is a collaborative project between HB Litigation Conferences and the Fastcase legal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, and Docket Alarm. The podcast itself is a joint effort between HB and our friends at Law Street Media. If you have comments or wish to participate in one our projects please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

    Tom Hagy

    (actual size)

    Tom Hagy
    Litigation Enthusiast and
    Host of the Emerging Litigation Podcast
    Home Page
    LinkedIn

    Jennifer Hoekstra

    Jennifer HoekstraAlystock Witkin Kreis & Overholtz

    Jennifer M. Hoekstra is a partner with Aylstock, Witkin, Kreis & Overholtz, PLLC. A native of Saint Paul, Minnesota, Ms. Hoekstra boasts an impressive academic and professional record, including graduation from two of the nation’s top schools. She earned her Bachelor of Arts in Environmental Science from Columbia College, Columbia University in the City of New York.

    She is licensed to practice before all Louisiana state and federal courts and the U.S. District Courts for the Northern District of Texas and Eastern District of Missouri as well as the 5th and 8th Circuit Courts.

  • The Rise of Multi-Claimant Litigation in England and How Companies Can Manage Potential Exposure

    The Rise of Multi-Claimant Litigation in England and How Companies Can Manage Potential Exposure

    The Authors

    Sheila L. Birnbaum

    Mark S. Cheffo

    Dorothy Cory-Wright

    Evan Flowers

    Jacqueline Harrington

    Will Sachse

    Stephen Surgeoner

    Rachel Leary

    Caroline Power

    Julie Witham

    The Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation

    Emerging Litigation Podcast

    Emerging Litigation PodcastProduced by HB Litigation and Law Street Media

    Interviews with leading attorneys and other subject matter experts on new twists in the law and how the law is responding to new twists in the world.

    The Rise of Multi-Claimant Litigation in England and How Companies Can Manage
    Potential Exposure

    “With the growth in US/English partnerships for bringing multi-claimant actions in England, there may be an increased interest in leveraging US discovery for copycat English claims. The larger mass torts become in the United States, the more likely they are to feed into related multi-claimant actions in England.”

    Abstract: Recent court decisions have signaled the English courts’ willingness to embrace multi-claimant litigation and to broaden the types of questions decided on a collective basis. These developments have led UK-based plaintiffs’ lawyers to expand mass tort filings, including doing so in partnership with US plaintiffs’ lawyers who are actively advertising in England. This article provides an overview of multi-claimant litigation in England, highlights some of the factors that may lead to its increase, and discusses steps that companies operating in the English market can take now to manage potential exposure.

    Three primary mechanisms for bringing collective actions before an English court:

    1) Representative actions, group litigation orders (GLOs), and collective actions before the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT).

    2) Representative actions, in their current form, and GLOs are products of the general Civil Procedure Rules (CPR).

    3) Representative actions originated in the common law and permit a representative claimant or defendant with the “same interest” in a claim to represent that interest on behalf of a class.

    Download the article now!

  • Ohio Supreme Court Ruling Sends Important Reminder: Long-Standing, Fundamental Principles of Insurance Policy Construction and Law Are Applicable to Cyber Claims

    Ohio Supreme Court Ruling Sends Important Reminder: Long-Standing, Fundamental Principles of Insurance Policy Construction and Law Are Applicable to Cyber Claims

    The Authors

    Judy Selby

    Judy SelbyKennedys

    Judy Selby (judy.selby@kennedyslaw.com) is a Partner at Kennedys (New York) where she focuses her practice primarily on insurance coverage matters with a concentration in coverage for exposures arising out of emerging technology, digital, and compliance risks.

    Tracey Kline

    Tracey KlineKennedys

    Tracey M.Kline (tracey.kline@kennedyslaw.com) is an Associate at Kennedys (Philadelphia) where she focuses her practice primarily on insurance coverage litigation and cyber matters.

    The Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation

    Emerging Litigation Podcast

    Emerging Litigation PodcastProduced by HB Litigation and Law Street Media

    Interviews with leading attorneys and other subject matter experts on new twists in the law and how the law is responding to new twists in the world.

    Ohio Supreme Court Ruling Sends Important Reminder:

    Long-Standing, Fundamental Principles of Insurance Policy Construction and Law Are Applicable to Cyber Claims

    Abstract: On December 27, 2022, the Ohio Supreme Court unanimously ruled that a business owner’s property insurance policy issued by Owners Insurance Co. to EMOI Services, LLC did not afford coverage for losses sustained in a ransomware attack because computer software is “entirely intangible” and “cannot experience ‘direct physical loss or physical damage.’” EMOI Servs., LLC. v. Owners Ins. Co., 2022-Ohio-4649 (Ohio 2022). In doing so, the court reversed an attention-getting split decision by the lower appellate court. This article takes an in-depth look at the case and discusses its significant implications.

    The Ohio Supreme Court’s decision was based on its commonsense conclusions that software (as intangible property) cannot suffer physical damage, and that coverage for restoration of information under the Electronic Equipment Endorsement could not be triggered absent the threshold requirement of “direct physical loss or damage” to the media on which the information was stored. Although claims involving cyber events may be relatively new, this decision is an important reminder that long-standing, fundamental principles of insurance policy construction and law are applicable to cyber claims.

    Download the article now!

  • Digital Health Care Companies, Beware: Federal Agencies Are Tracking Your Use of Online Tracking Technologies

    Digital Health Care Companies, Beware: Federal Agencies Are Tracking Your Use of Online Tracking Technologies

    The Authors

    Patricia Markus

    Patricia MarkusNelson Mullins

    Patricia A. Markus (trish.markus@nelsonmullins.com) represents health care providers and health technology companies across the country on wide-ranging regulatory compliance, reimbursement, licensure, and operational matters, with a special focus on issues surrounding health information privacy, security, and technology.

    Shane Duer

    Shane DuerNelson Mullins

    Shane Duer (shane.duer@nelsonmullins.com) focuses his practice on healthcare regulatory and corporate matters, with an emphasis on data privacy, cyber security, and information management concerns within and beyond the health care industry.

    The Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation

    Emerging Litigation Podcast

    Emerging Litigation PodcastProduced by HB Litigation and Law Street Media

    Interviews with leading attorneys and other subject matter experts on new twists in the law and how the law is responding to new twists in the world.

    Digital Health Care Companies, Beware 

    Federal Agencies Are Tracking Your Use of Online Tracking Technologies.

    Abstract: Health care industry stakeholders have regularly used online tracking technologies to help improve patient experience. However, growing scrutiny by the Office for Civil Rights, which enforces the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), requires covered entities and business associates to proceed cautiously in their use of such technologies. In addition, recent enforcement actions by the Federal Trade Commission make clear that a wide range of digital health companies, whether or not regulated by HIPAA, must tread carefully when collecting and disclosing personal information related to health, especially where consumers’ location data is to be used for a company’s advertising purposes, as they may be held accountable for failing to maintain the privacy and security of individuals’ protected and individually identifiable health information.

    The increasing number of lawsuits and news articles regarding use of these technologies demonstrates that third-party technology tracking vendors who receive PHI often are not operating under Business Associate Agreements (BAAs). The vendors in most instances disavow any need to collect PHI and accordingly instruct users to avoid sending PHI or other personally identifiable information. Under HIPAA, covered entities and business associates generally may not disclose PHI to third parties for health care operations purposes, unless such disclosure is to a business associate pursuant to a BAA, or the disclosure is made pursuant to an individual’s HIPAA-compliant authorization.

    Not only does sharing PHI through third-party tracking technologies without individuals’ authorizations violate HIPAA, but the FTC has asserted in two recent enforcement actions that the collection and sharing of individuals’ IIHI through these technologies without individuals’ “affirmative express consent” constitutes unfair and deceptive trade practices.

    Download the article now!

  • Alleged Hair Product Injuries Impact Women of Color

    Alleged Hair Product Injuries Impact Women of Color

    L’Oréal Among Defendants in Litigation Over Hair Products.

    • Dozens of hair straightener cases allege higher incidence of cancers and other diseases.
    • Plaintiffs in dry shampoo litigation say products contain benzene. 
    • Seven companies control the U.S. hair product industry.

    Photo by Giorgio Trovato on Unsplash

    L’Oréal has been hit hard in recent hair care litigation related to straighteners, relaxants, and dry shampoos. L’Oréal was named a defendant in nearly sixty complaints alleging that straightening products manufactured by the beauty giant have caused cancer in its consumers. L’Oréal has also been named a defendant in a proposed class-action for its Redken dry shampoo that allegedly contains the carcinogen benzene. Other large industry players such as Johnson and Johnson and Unilever have also been accused of selling dry shampoos with dangerous levels of benzene.

    Straighteners and Relaxers Litigation

    Dozens of cases have been consolidated in multidistrict litigation against L’Oréal for its potentially cancerous hair straighteners and relaxers. Mitchell v. L’Oréal USA Inc. is a typical case.  It was filed by Missourian Jennifer Mitchell, a black woman, after her diagnosis of uterine cancer which she claims was caused by endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) in L’Oréal’s hair straighteners and relaxers. Jennifer Mitchell was diagnosed with her cancer on August 10, 2018.

    “Ms. Mitchell was first exposed to EDCs and/or phthalate-based products around 2000, at or around the age of 10, when she began using Defendants’ Product.” She used the products as instructed for 22 years, leaving the chemicals in her hair for long periods of time. At the age of 28, she was diagnosed with uterine cancer despite the cancer not being in her family history. As a result of her cancer diagnosis, Ms. Mitchell had to undergo a full hysterectomy, causing her emotional and physical pain, and rendering her unable to have children.

    The complaint details a long history of marketing harmful hair relaxers and straighteners to black women to combat their natural hair texture and meet a Eurocentric white beauty standard.

    The filed complaint consisted of fifteen counts ranging from strict liability failure to warn and negligence to medical monitoring. The products included in the complaint were Motions, Dark & Lovely, Olive Oil Relaxer, and Organic Root Stimulator.

    Ms. Mitchell’s evidence supports her claims that the products allegedly caused her cancer due to EDCs. Health issues linked to EDCs include uterine cancer, breast cancer, uterine fibroids, endometriosis, and preterm delivery, amongst others. “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.

    Ms. Mitchell’s case was consolidated with dozens of other cases against L’Oréal and other defendants in Chicago federal court as In re: Hair Relaxer Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation. The consolidation was opposed on December 7, 2022, by L’Oréal USA, Inc., L’Oréal USA Products, Inc., SoftSheen-Carson LLC, and SoftSheen-Carson (W.I.), Inc., collectively known as “the L’Oréal defendants.”

    In the L’Oréal defendants’ response to the motion for consolidation, the company first outlined its issues with the frequently referenced NIH study that catalyzed the filing of many of the plaintiffs’ lawsuits. For example, L’Oréal stated that the study “did not collect information on specific brands or ingredients used by the participants,” and that “all of the women in the NIH Study had sisters who had been diagnosed with breast cancer.” L’Oréal also argued that none of the plaintiffs’ cases were similar enough to consolidate. The plaintiffs’ cases differed in products used, timespans, named defendants, and injuries.

    Further, L’Oréal argued that if consolidation had to happen, then the case should use the Southern District of New York as a forum, where fifteen of the matters were pending, and where the company has its headquarters. The defendant also disagreed with the Chicago judge that the case would be assigned to—The Honorable Mary M. Rowland—claiming she lacked multidistrict litigation (MDL) experience.

    Despite L’Oréal’s best efforts, its motion was fruitless. Cases in “Schedule A” of the MDL (MDL No. 3060) were consolidated on February 6, 2023. Cases from California, New York, Georgia, and Illinois, including Ms. Mitchell’s case, were assigned to The Honorable Mary M. Rowland in the Northern District of Illinois. Since the original transfer, many other actions have been added to the MDL.

    Dry Shampoo Litigation

    In addition to allegations that its relaxing and straightening hair products cause cancer, L’Oréal is also currently facing accusations of using benzene, a well-known carcinogen, in its dry shampoo products. Other big-names that have been appearing in dry-shampoo complaints include Johnson and Johnson (J&J)’s OGX brand and Unilever’s Dove, Nexxus, Suave, Tigi and Tresemmé brands.

    What Is Benzene?

    Benzene is a chemical compound that can be both naturally and man-produced. Its harm to human health has been at the heart of many instances of litigation. Benzene, “a component of crude oil, gasoline, and cigarette smoke,” has been determined to be unsafe for human exposure in any quantity greater than zero. Government bodies such as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the World Health Organization have spoken out against the dangers of benzene, and have attempted to limit its exposure to the public.

    Valisure’s Report

    On October 31, 2022, Valisure released a Citizen Petition on Benzene in Dry Shampoo Products, which prompted the wave of dry shampoo litigation hitting the U.S. court system. The company claims to have tested 148 batches of dry shampoo from 34 different brands and found that 70% of its samples contained benzene in varying amounts.

    Pictured Above: Valisure Table 6. Overview of first spray analyses by brand. In some cases, two bottles from the same lot were analyzed and these duplicate lots are grouped by a black outline around the two values.

    The petition itself requested a recall of the products Valisure found to be contaminated with benzene, that the Commissioner of the FDA establish better procedures for informing the public of their exposure to dangerous substances in cosmetics, amongst other requests.

    Hirsch v. L’Oréal USA, Inc.: The Complaint

    In a complaint filed on November 22, 2022, Plaintiff Eileen Hirsch and others similarly situated brought suit against L’Oréal USA, Inc. for its Redken brand dry shampoo products. The class action lawsuit alleges that the product line contains benzene, a carcinogen with evidence linking it to causing cancers such as leukemia, amongst other illnesses. Benzene was not a listed ingredient in the products. Yet, the independent study performed by Valisure found that the product contained as much as 7.55 parts per million (“ppm”) of benzene.

    Ms. Hirsch, a Chicago resident, purchased multiple canisters of the Redken dry shampoo from a salon in the area. The complaint alleges that she was harmed in two separate ways: “First, Ms. Hirsch purchased adulterated and misbranded products that were illegally sold to her, and therefore worthless. Second, Ms. Hirsch was deceived by Defendant’s representations and omissions regarding the presence of benzene in the Products.” Other class members are also individuals who have purchased Redken dry shampoo.

    Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss

    Defendant L’Oréal did its best to get the case dismissed in a motion filed on February 7, 2023. In its Motion to Dismiss, L’Oréal gave several reasons for the complaint’s deficiency, including that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the claim and that the claims are preempted. Further, L’Oréal argues that the independent Valisure study relied upon by the plaintiff is insufficient to support the claims, stating that “Valisure . . . [is an] untrustworthy laboratory that has been censured by the [FDA] and federal judges alike.”

    Plaintiffs responded to L’Oréal’s Motion to Dismiss, stating that the case was simple, standing had been correctly established, and the defendant’s allegations of insufficient Valisure testing were premature. L’Oréal has replied to the plaintiffs’ motion, but the court has not yet ruled on the Motion to Dismiss, determining the fate of the case.

    Looking Forward

    Those following the concert of haircare litigation should watch closely to see which product lines are tapped next and why. L’Oréal may be one of the more popular defendants, but that does not mean there aren’t other offenders.

    Most beauty products known to average consumers are owned by one of seven large companies—J&J, L’Oréal, Eéste Lauder, Unilever, Procter and Gamble, Shiseido, and Coty. For better or for worse, these corporate identities pioneer most of the research and manufacturing that goes into the creation of the world’s fashion, beauty, and hygiene products. That means when these companies use carcinogens, they can likely be found in a mind-boggling number of items behind your own bathroom mirror, leading to mass injury and extremely complex litigation.

    By Victoria Kline

    By Victoria Kline

    Victoria is a third-year student at the University of Miami School of Law, Juris Doctorate Candidate 2023, Law Review Staff Editor, and soon-to-be associate at Jones Day.