Two plaintiffs who spent decades working in hair salons have filed separate lawsuits in Los Angeles Superior Courts against cosmetics companies, alleging that exposure to hair dye products caused them to develop bladder cancer.
In one of the lawsuits, plaintiff Shadia Smith of Kern County alleges in a March 25 complaint that products manufactured by a number of companies, including L’Oréal USA and John Paul Mitchell Systems, contributed to her development of bladder cancer.
The lawsuits are expected to be the beginning of an effort by trial attorneys both nationwide and in California to link occupational exposure to the dyes in hair-coloring products to bladder cancer and other serious ailments, according to Aboutlawsuits.com, which is sponsored by the Baltimore-based law firm Saiontz & Kirk P.A.
Smith’s complaint cites a number of scientific studies conducted over the past couple of decades indicating that frequent exposure to such chemicals increases a salon worker’s risk of developing bladder cancer. Such individuals have much greater exposure over their lifetimes than customers who may color their hair every seven or eight weeks, according to the lawsuit.
But the science behind the bladder cancer link has been challenged. A spokesman for L’Oréal told the Southern California Record in an email that product safety remains the company’s highest priority.
“Every product we create undergoes rigorous testing for quality, safety and efficacy before it reaches the market,” the spokesperson said. “Hair dye has been safely used by tens of millions of hairstylists and consumers around the world every single day, often over the course of a lifetime. While we deeply empathize with these individuals in their search for answers regarding their illness, this lawsuit is entirely without scientific or legal merit."
The two lawsuits filed in Los Angeles Superior Court were both advanced by the same law firms, Morgan & Morgan P.A. in Los Angeles and the Smith Law Firm PLLC of Mississippi.
The Shadia Smith lawsuit emphasizes that manufacturers in the cosmetics industry regulate themselves and that federal law doesn’t mandate the Food and Drug Administration to approve such products before they are marketed. But such products do have labeling requirements that call for warnings if a health hazard could result from exposure to the product, the complaint says.
The bladder cancer risk from long-term dye exposure has been known to manufacturers and accepted by scientists, the lawsuit alleges.
A 2001 study concluded that the risk of bladder cancer rose 500% for hairdressers and barbers who were exposed to hair dyes for a decade or more, according to the complaint. And a 2009 meta-analysis found causal associations between those who work as hairdressers and cases of bladder cancer.
“The results of the present meta-analysis on 42 studies suggest that there is robust evidence for an increased risk of bladder cancer among hairdressers, in particular for hairdressers in a job held greater than or equal to 10 years,” the 2009 study states.
A 2015 study examining which occupations are associated with higher risks for bladder cancer concluded that salon workers were among the most at risk.
“The study also found that the risk of bladder cancer was highest in occupations in which workers were exposed to aromatic amines (rubber, plastic and dye workers, hairdressers and painters),” the lawsuit states.
The Smith lawsuit alleges fraud and violations of the state’s Unfair Competition Law. The lawsuit asks the court for a judgment that includes past and future general damages, economic damages, medical expenses, punitive damages, compensation for pain and suffering, and attorney fees.