Thousands of women have filed lawsuits alleging that long‑term use of chemical hair relaxers and straighteners contributed to serious health problems, including uterine cancer, endometrial cancer, ovarian cancer, and other reproductive injuries. Those cases are consolidated in federal multidistrict litigation, MDL 3060, in the Northern District of Illinois, where the court is handling common pretrial issues such as scientific evidence, warnings, and corporate knowledge in one coordinated proceeding.
The litigation has become one of the larger active federal mass torts, with more than 11,000 cases pending in 2026 and new filings still being added. The MDL is now in a bellwether and expert‑development phase, with a group of cases being prepared for early test trials that will help show how juries may respond to the evidence and can influence how the broader litigation develops.
For women in Jacksonville, Florida, and across Alabama, the key point is that the presence of an active MDL does not create an open‑ended filing window. State‑law deadlines still govern how long potential claimants may have to bring a case.
Why Delay Matters in Florida
Under current Florida law, negligence actions generally must be filed within two years under Fla. Stat. § 95.11(5)(a). Product‑liability claims may also be affected by Florida’s product‑liability statute of repose in Fla. Stat. § 95.031(2)(b), which can impose an outside deadline based on when the product was first delivered to its original purchaser, rather than when an injury or diagnosis occurred.
That combination matters in hair relaxer cases because many women used relaxers and straighteners for years, often across multiple brands, and only later learned of a possible connection between product use and a serious diagnosis. By the time that link comes into focus, records may be harder to locate, brand history less clear, and the timing analysis under Florida law more complex.
Florida’s statute also contains an important exception. Fla. Stat. § 95.031(2)(c) provides that the repose period in paragraph (2)(b) does not apply if the claimant was exposed to or used the product within the repose period, but the injury caused by that exposure or use did not manifest until after the repose period expired. In a hair relaxer case, where injury may not appear until long after repeated use, that exception can be central to the analysis.
Why Delay Matters in Alabama
Alabama law takes a similarly strict approach to timing, though the details are different. As a general rule, Alabama applies a two‑year statute of limitations to most personal‑injury and product‑liability lawsuits. However, Alabama’s product‑liability statute, Ala. Code § 6‑5‑502, adds specific rules when the claim is brought against the “original seller” of a product.
Section 6‑5‑502(a)(1) provides that, subject to certain exceptions, a product‑liability action against an original seller must be commenced “within one year of the time the personal injury, death, or property damage occurs.” For latent, exposure‑based injuries—such as those involving ingestion or exposure to a toxic or harmful substance over time—§ 6‑5‑502(b) allows suit to be filed within one year from the date the injury “is or in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have been discovered.”
On top of that, Ala. Code § 6‑5‑502(c) states that a product‑liability action against an original seller must be brought “within 10 years after the manufactured product is first put to use” by someone who did not acquire it for resale or further distribution. In other words, Alabama layers an outside “first put to use” limit on top of its one‑year and discovery rules when the claim targets the original seller.
In practice, Alabama lawyers often describe the landscape in two parts: most personal‑injury and product‑liability claims are subject to a two‑year limitations period, but claims against an original seller are narrowed by the specific one‑year and 10‑year provisions in § 6‑5‑502. For Alabama women looking at potential hair relaxer claims, that means both the date of injury or diagnosis and the age of the product are critical.
Why This Is Especially Important in Hair Relaxer Cases
Hair relaxer claims involve allegations that long‑term, repeated exposure to certain chemical formulations contributed to hormone‑related cancers, often years after the first use. A widely discussed NIH‑linked study reported a significantly higher uterine cancer risk among frequent users of chemical straighteners compared with non‑users, which helped spur the current wave of litigation.
That kind of long‑latency, exposure‑based injury is exactly where statutes of limitation and repose can do the most work behind the scenes. In both Florida and Alabama, the timing of use, the timing of diagnosis, and the wording of statutes such as Fla. Stat. § 95.11(5)(a), Fla. Stat. § 95.031(2)(b)-(c), and Ala. Code § 6‑5‑502 can all affect whether a claim is considered timely.
For readers in Jacksonville, Florida, and across Alabama, the practical takeaway is that the hair relaxer MDL is still growing and evolving at the federal level, but state‑law deadlines remain critical. Understanding not only what is happening in MDL 3060, but also how Florida and Alabama time‑limit rules operate, is an important part of evaluating potential claim. If you or a loved one believe you may have a potential hair straightener or hair relaxer claim, the takeaway message is do not delay in getting any such claim evaluated by an attorney.