Arizona Attorney General Kristin Mayes sued L'Oréal SA late Thursday, accusing the cosmetics giant of concealing scientific evidence that its hair relaxer products could increase women's risk of certain cancers. The complaint, filed in state court, seeks penalties and damages and asks a judge to compel warnings or bar sales unless consumers are informed of the alleged risks.
State accuses company of prioritizing profit over safety
The lawsuit alleges L'Oréal violated Arizona consumer protection laws by marketing hair relaxers, products used primarily by African American women, without disclosing information about purported links to ovarian and uterine cancers. In its filing, the office of the attorney general contends the company and affiliated brands exploited "centuries of social pressures and discriminatory beauty standards affecting people of African descent, all while prioritizing profit over consumer safety."
The action makes Arizona the first state to bring a consumer protection suit over alleged cancer risks tied to hair relaxers. It comes amid more than 12,000 similar lawsuits nationwide consolidated before a federal judge in Chicago through multidistrict litigation, a process used to coordinate cases with common legal and factual questions.
What the lawsuit cites
The state points to a 2022 study funded by the National Institutes of Health that found women who used hair relaxers several times a year were more than twice as likely to develop uterine cancer. That study prompted the initial wave of individual lawsuits, which seek damages for medical costs, pain and suffering and economic losses tied to product purchase and use.
- Defendants named: L'Oréal SA and related companies (brands include products sold under names such as Dark and Lovely and Optimum, according to filings).
- Remedies sought: civil penalties, compensatory damages and a court order requiring warnings or halting sales without disclosure.
- Scientific anchor cited: 2022 NIH study linking frequent relaxer use with higher uterine cancer risk.
Company response and litigation context
A spokesperson for L'Oréal did not immediately reply to requests for comment on the Arizona complaint. The company has previously said its products undergo extensive safety evaluations and that it is confident the claims in the pending litigation "are without legal or scientific merit."
"[Our] products are subject to rigorous safety reviews and the company is confident that the claims are without legal or scientific merit," a company spokesperson said in earlier statements.
Arizona's suit differs from the consolidated federal cases in that it invokes state consumer protection statutes and seeks state enforcement remedies in addition to individual compensation. The MDL in Chicago continues to process thousands of private suits from women and families who allege the products caused cancers after long-term use.
Public-health and community implications
Hair relaxers are marketed as permanent straightening treatments for textured hair. The lawsuit emphasizes that many of the products’ consumers are women of African descent and that marketing practices intersect with broader societal pressures about beauty standards.
Legal experts and public-health advocates say state-level actions can complement federal litigation by seeking remedies that target corporate practices and labeling, not just compensation for individual plaintiffs. Arizona's request for injunctive relief — an order forcing warnings or stopping sales — would directly affect product availability and consumer information if granted.
| Data point | Figure |
|---|---|
| Pending similar lawsuits nationwide | 12,000+ |
| Study cited linking relaxer use to uterine cancer | 2022 NIH-funded study |
The complaint does not seek to prove causation through the state filing itself; rather, it alleges L'Oréal failed to disclose or warn consumers about health risks that the state says were known or should have been known. Any determination of liability and causation will be decided later in court proceedings or through settlement negotiations.
For consumers, the lawsuit underscores an ongoing debate over product safety, corporate disclosure responsibilities and regulatory oversight of cosmetics. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration regulates cosmetics differently than drugs, and safety standards, testing and labeling practices for cosmetics have been a recurring topic of scrutiny.
Arizona's action may influence how other states and plaintiffs approach claims tied to cosmetics and long-term health risks, and it adds a state-level enforcement dimension to sweeping federal multidistrict litigation already underway.
— Reporting by the WE NEWS Arizona bureau.
