Court ruling allows Georgia woman to pursue lawsuit against makers of hair relaxer products 

A woman who says she developed a medical condition after using a common hair product can continue legal action against the manufacturers after a decision from the Georgia Supreme Court released Wednesday. 

Georgia Supreme Court Justices sided in favor of a woman suing hair product manufacturers after developing uterine fibroids, allowing the case to move forward. Stanley Dunlap/Georgia Recorder

A woman who says she developed a medical condition after using a common hair product can continue legal action against the manufacturers after a decision from the Georgia Supreme Court released Wednesday.

The justices did not rule on the specifics of the woman’s case, but their decision could impact Georgians who say they have been harmed by prolonged exposure to many types of product.

Kiara Burroughs told the court she started using chemical hair relaxer products, which help straighten naturally curly hair, around 1995, including products manufactured by Strength of Nature and L’Oreal. She said she used them regularly between 1995 and 2001 and from 2002 to 2014.

In 2018, Burroughs was diagnosed with uterine fibroids, which are common, non-cancerous growths on the uterus. According to the Mayo Clinic, many women develop uterine fibroids but never know it because they usually cause no symptoms. In some cases, however, the growths can lead to serious pain or cause menstrual or urinary problems.

Burroughs filed suit against Strength of Nature and L’Oreal in October of 2022 after reading a study published that month finding a possible link between hair straightening products and uterine cancer.

The companies moved to dismiss the lawsuit because Burroughs’ first purchase of the products fell outside Georgia’s 10-year statute of repose, which says that legal action can’t be brought “after ten years from the date of the first sale for use or consumption of the personal property causing or otherwise bringing about the injury,” according to Georgia code.

Burroughs’ attorneys said her lawsuit is valid because she bought some of the hair relaxer within the 10-year window.

The Georgia Court of Appeals sided with the companies, agreeing that because she first bought the products as early as 1995, that earlier purchase set the “first sale” timer.

But the justices rejected that argument, finding that the phrase “first sale” in the state law refers to the retail sale to a user as opposed to any future resale.

“If that is what ‘first’ does in this provision—and it is—then there is no room for the manufacturers’ view that the word ‘first’ in this provision specifies which sale in a chain of sales to the same end user starts the statute of repose for the entire chain,” wrote Justice Andrew Pinson in the unanimous opinion. “That word cannot simultaneously carry a second, entirely different meaning and purpose, like a linguistic chameleon that changes its meaning and purpose on the fly depending on the facts of the case.”

The justices sought to keep the opinion narrow, noting that a plaintiff like Burroughs has the ultimate burden of proof that the units sold within the 10-year window were the cause of their injury – and they said that may prove difficult if a significant portion of the units were used outside the repose period.

In a concurring opinion written by Justice Charlie Bethel and joined by Chief Justice Nels Peterson and Justices John Ellington, Shawn Ellen LaGrua and Benjamin Land, Bethel emphasized that the court did not address the question of whether a claim could succeed if it relies in part on a theory that a plaintiff’s injuries were produced by a combined effect that includes products purchased both inside and outside the 10-year window.

Attorney Elizabeth Stone, part of the team representing Burroughs, celebrated the win and said the team looks forward to the discovery phase of the trial, “which will allow us to determine what the manufacturers knew about the potential health effects of their hair relaxer products on the consumers to whom the products were being marketed,” she said in an email.

“We look forward to continuing to pursue this litigation on behalf of Ms. Burroughs,” she added.

Stone said the opinion will set a precedent affecting any type of product liability claim brought about in Georgia, which could be significant for consumers looking to sue for injuries caused over a prolonged period.

“And we are certainly glad the Court has clarified that; given that we live in a time when science can identify dangerous products in more exacting fashion than in the past, the governing Georgia statute certainly needed some clarification,” she said.

Attorneys for Strength of Nature Global and L’Oreal USA responded to requests for comment with a statement they attributed to L’Oreal:

“We are disappointed by today’s ruling. However, this ruling only pertains to a procedural matter and we are pleased the Georgia Supreme Court made clear its decision does not relate to the cause of Plaintiffs’ alleged injuries. L’Oreal USA strictly follows all regulations in every market in which it operates, and its products are always subject to a rigorous scientific evaluation of their safety. The health and wellbeing of all our consumers are of utmost importance to us. We are confident in the safety of SoftSheen-Carson’s (a division of L’Oreal that markets hair care and beauty products designed for people of color) products and believe the allegations made in these lawsuits will be proven to have neither legal nor scientific merit.”

SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE