On September 11, 2026, Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes filed the first-ever consumer fraud lawsuit against L’Oréal USA and its subsidiary SoftSheen-Carson. She gave a name to what thousands of women had been claiming in civil courts for years: that the chemicals in their hair relaxers were subtly connected to cancer, and that no one in the industry felt particularly compelled to inform them.
The lawsuit, which was filed in Maricopa County, focuses on goods marketed under well-known brands like Dark & Lovely, Optimum, and Mizani. Generations of Black women grew up with these brands and their products, which were marketed with an aspirational confidence that seldom allowed for fine print. The 25-page complaint claims that since the 1970s, L’Oréal and SoftSheen-Carson have been marketing “Eurocentric beauty standards” to women and children of African descent in Arizona while the science surrounding their chemical ingredients was quietly building up in research journals.
It is important to comprehend the particular chemicals in question. Phthalates, parabens, cyclosiloxanes, and benzophenones are among the endocrine-disrupting substances found in contemporary chemical relaxers. According to the filing, when applied to the scalp under normal circumstances, some of those can form or release toxic compounds, such as formaldehyde, ethylene oxide, and 1,4-dioxane. Many users reapply frequently, sometimes multiple times a year, because the effects of relaxers are transient. Repeated exposure is important. Chemicals are effectively absorbed by the forehead and scalp. The accumulation grows over time.
Mayes’ timeline is particularly relevant because the science supporting this has been developing for decades. A 1995 Boston University study and a 2009 National Institutes of Health “Sister Study” that looked at Black Americans’ cancer risk are cited in the complaint. Then, in 2021, an NIH researcher who specialized in hair products discovered that women who regularly used chemical relaxers had a twofold increased risk of ovarian cancer.
According to a 2022 NIH study, frequent users were more than twice as likely to develop uterine cancer. The first lawsuits started to appear in federal court shortly after that study was published. Consolidated in Chicago as part of a multidistrict litigation process, there are currently over 12,000 of them. In terms of precedent, Arizona’s state-level case is distinct and possibly more important.
Throughout, L’Oréal has responded consistently. According to a company representative, the products are subjected to stringent safety assessments and adhere to regulations in each market where they are sold. Additionally, the company refuted the main study, pointing out that one of its lead researchers acknowledged other possible contributing factors and that the study “made no finding of a causal connection” between relaxer use and cancer. In the strict sense, these are reasonable scientific observations.
Research demonstrating association is not the same as research demonstrating causation. However, detractors contend that the burden of disclosure should not be solely on the consumer and that the lack of proof is not the same as proof of absence.
The market for chemical hair relaxers is worth $718 million. They make up about 25% of all hair products sold to Black customers, a market segment valued at approximately $2.5 billion a year. Garrett Augustus Morgan, who experimented with fabric treatments in the early 1900s and found a chemical hair straightening formula, is credited with the products’ commercial beginnings. He started running newspaper ads in 1913. Since then, both the industry and the scientific record surrounding it seem to have grown significantly.
Beyond the legal details, this lawsuit is noteworthy because of what it says about the connection between informed consent and beauty marketing. There is a perception that appearance-based industries have occasionally operated with less scrutiny than they deserved, especially those that target communities with particular cultural histories surrounding beauty standards. Courts are there to decide whether L’Oréal withheld information on purpose or just profited from an industry-wide practice of not raising difficult questions loudly enough.
Restitution, fines, and a court order mandating sufficient consumer warnings before these goods can be sold in the state are what Arizona is requesting. Other attorneys general might be keeping a close eye on this.
