Cosmetics Lawsuit News: PFAS, Talc, and Hair Relaxer Claims

Cosmetics lawsuit news in 2025 and 2026 has centered on six distinct fronts: misleading labels, biometric data collected through virtual try-on tools, bacterial and chemical contamination, PFAS “forever chemicals,” hair relaxer cancer claims, and Johnson & Johnson’s talc cases. Several of those matters have already produced settlements consumers can file claims against, while others are still moving through the courts. Unilever, Estée Lauder, L’Oréal, Procter & Gamble, Colgate-Palmolive, and Johnson & Johnson are among the defendants.

Labeling and False Advertising Cases

A large share of recent filings accuse brands of putting a promise on the front of the package that the ingredient list doesn’t support.

Unilever’s Dove brand is a repeat target. In May 2026, plaintiffs Debra Mills, Jesse Montano, and Eileen Aviles filed a class action in the Northern District of California alleging that Dove Sensitive Hypoallergenic Body Wash contains d-Limonene, a fragrance allergen recognized by both the FDA and the European Union, despite being marketed as “hypoallergenic.”¹ The complaint alleges that hundreds of thousands of consumers with conditions like contact dermatitis were misled by the hypoallergenic label.²

In December 2025, a class action filed in the Southern District of New York accused Unilever of deceptively advertising Dove retinol body washes. Plaintiff Rozaliya Ripa argues that because the products rinse off during use, the retinol washes away before the biological conversion needed to produce anti-aging benefits can occur.³ A separate December 2025 filing alleges Dove Men’s 0% Aluminum Deodorant is labeled “alcohol-free” while containing benzyl alcohol.⁴

Procter & Gamble faces a similar accusation. In May 2026, Lisa Phaneuf filed a class action in the District of Massachusetts alleging that Secret Invisible Solid Antiperspirant is marketed as “unscented” while listing “fragrance” as its final ingredient, with no disclaimer on the front of the package.⁵

Retailer Ulta Beauty is defending a nationwide class action filed in 2025 by plaintiff Margaret Garvey. The suit alleges that products sold under Ulta’s “Conscious Beauty” program, which carries a “Clean Ingredients” pillar and a “Made Without List,” actually contain excluded substances including acrylates, phthalates, phenoxyethanol, and various aluminum compounds.⁶ Named products include Dermalogica’s MultiVitamin Power Recovery Mask, Drunk Elephant’s A-Passioni Retinol Cream, L’Oréal’s Revitalift Triple Power moisturizer, and Ulta’s house-brand items. Legal observers have noted that Ulta’s “Made Without List” reads as an absolute exclusion, which could make a motion to dismiss harder to win than a similar 2024 case against Sephora.⁷

Biometric Privacy Suits Over Virtual Try-On Tools

Illinois’ Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) requires companies to obtain prior written consent before collecting biometric identifiers like facial geometry. Several beauty brands have been sued over augmented-reality try-on features that scan the user’s face.

In early June 2026, a federal judge in the Northern District of Illinois denied MAC Cosmetics’ motion to dismiss a BIPA class action brought by Fiza Javid. The suit alleges that MAC’s virtual try-on technology, used in stores and online, captured facial data without informed consent. The judge found that Javid “plausibly alleged that MAC was capable of identifying her using collected biometric data.” In 2024, a different Illinois judge had dismissed a similar suit against MAC’s parent Estée Lauder for failing to establish those identification capabilities, which makes the MAC ruling notable.⁸

E.L.F. Beauty is in a similar position. A BIPA class action filed in 2024 over its virtual try-on tool survived the company’s motion to compel arbitration, and the core facial-geometry claim is proceeding, though two related counts were dismissed for lack of standing.⁹

Two settlements have already paid out on the same theory. Charlotte Tilbury agreed in October 2024 to a $2.925 million settlement over its online shade-finder tools used between 2019 and 2023, with individual class members eligible for payments of $700 to $1,100.¹⁰ Neutrogena reached a $4.7 million BIPA settlement in February 2026.¹¹ BIPA is an Illinois statute, so its consent requirement generally reaches users whose data was collected in Illinois.

Contamination Settlements Consumers Can Claim

Several recent settlements give consumers a direct path to a refund or payment.

Colgate-Palmolive and its Tom’s of Maine subsidiary agreed to a $2.9 million settlement in April 2026 resolving class action claims tied to FDA inspections in 2021 and 2022 that identified Pseudomonas aeruginosa bacteria in production water at the Sanford, Maine facility. The litigation consolidated several cases including Rabinowitz v. Colgate-Palmolive Co. and Pitre v. Colgate-Palmolive Co.¹² Consumers who purchased Tom’s of Maine toothpaste in the United States between November 21, 2020, and March 6, 2026, can file claims by July 6, 2026. Buyers with proof of purchase may receive a full refund for up to three products per household, while those without receipts may receive the average retail price for one product, both subject to pro-rata adjustment.¹³ The defendants deny all allegations of wrongdoing.¹⁴

Athena Cosmetics, maker of RevitaLash and RevitaBrow serums, reached a $4.17 million settlement in January 2026. The lawsuit alleged the company failed to disclose that its products contain dechloro dihydroxy difluoro ethylcloprostenolamide (DDDE), a chemical found in prescription drugs, and that use carried risks of blepharitis, chronic dry eye, skin discoloration, excess hair growth outside the treatment area, and lash or brow loss.¹⁵

Benzene contamination has produced two more resolutions. Galderma Laboratories settled for $990,000 in March 2026 over alleged benzene in its Differin acne treatments, and Unilever proposed a $3.625 million settlement in May 2025 to resolve claims that dry shampoo brands including Suave, Dove, TRESemmé, TIGI, and Nexxus contained benzene.¹¹

PFAS in Cosmetics

Litigation over per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances is intensifying. In January 2026, Estée Lauder Cosmetics Ltd. pleaded guilty to two counts of violating Canada’s Environmental Protection Act and was fined $750,000 by the Ontario Court of Justice. Environment and Climate Change Canada officers had found that certain Estée Lauder eyeliner products sold in Canada contained perfluorononyl dimethicone, a silicone-PFAS hybrid used for durability. The company had been issued a compliance order in June 2023 and failed to comply, producing the second charge. The court ordered Estée Lauder to notify shareholders of the conviction and placed the company on Canada’s Environmental Offenders Registry.¹⁶¹⁷

In the United States, studies detecting fluorine, a potential PFAS marker, in cosmetics have fueled class actions against brands including bareMinerals, CoverGirl, Burt’s Bees, and L’Oréal. Testing reportedly found organic fluorine levels above 6,000 parts per million in CoverGirl’s TruBlend pressed powder foundation. Maine and Maryland have enacted PFAS bans in cosmetics, and the European Union is planning a broader ban.¹⁸¹⁹ The FDA published a report in December 2025 assessing PFAS risks in cosmetics.²⁰

Hair Relaxer Cancer Litigation

The hair relaxer multidistrict litigation, MDL-3060, is one of the largest mass torts affecting the beauty industry. It is pending before Judge Mary Rowland in the Northern District of Illinois. As of spring 2026, more than 11,400 plaintiffs have filed claims alleging that chemical hair straightening products caused uterine, ovarian, and other cancers, a case count that has grown 17% since January 2025.²¹

The litigation is driven largely by a 2022 National Institutes of Health study that found women who used chemical hair straighteners more than four times per year had roughly 2.5 times the risk of developing uterine cancer. Key defendants include L’Oréal (Dark & Lovely), Namaste LLC (ORS Olive Oil), Godrej Consumer Products (Just for Me), Strength of Nature (Motions), and Revlon.²²

No global settlement has been reached. Special Master Ellen K. Reisman is overseeing settlement discussions, though attorneys characterize the appointment as routine case management. Bellwether trials are expected to begin in 2027, with discovery motions due by November 2026. Estimated per-case settlement values for cancer claims remain in the $150,000 to $750,000 range, and the only allocated fund so far is a $44 million reserve from Revlon’s bankruptcy.²¹ State courts in Illinois, Georgia, Pennsylvania, and New York are advancing cases on parallel tracks.²²

Johnson & Johnson Talc Verdicts

Johnson & Johnson’s talcum powder litigation continues to produce large verdicts as the company’s bankruptcy strategy has failed. In December 2025, a Maryland jury awarded $1.5 billion to a single plaintiff who developed peritoneal mesothelioma, the largest individual verdict in the litigation to date. The same month, a California jury returned a $40 million verdict for two plaintiffs who alleged J&J’s talc products caused their ovarian cancer.²³

J&J has now made three unsuccessful attempts to resolve the talc claims through bankruptcy, offering $2 billion in 2021, $8.9 billion in 2023, and $8 billion in its most recent proposal. A bankruptcy judge rejected that final offer in April 2025, ruling the filing was not made in “good faith” because J&J is a financially healthy corporation. The company reported a 17% surge in new talc lawsuits after the rejection. J&J did reach a separate $700 million settlement with 42 states and the District of Columbia in June 2024 over marketing practice investigations, but that agreement does not cover individual asbestos-related claims. About 95% of mesothelioma lawsuits against J&J have historically been resolved through private settlements rather than trial.²³

The Regulatory Backdrop: MoCRA

Much of this litigation is unfolding as the FDA works through the biggest expansion of its cosmetics authority since 1938. The Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act of 2022 (MoCRA) gave the agency mandatory recall authority, access to safety records, and the power to suspend facility registrations for serious health risks. Companies must report serious adverse events within 15 business days and maintain safety records.²⁰

Implementation has run behind schedule. As of mid-2026, the FDA has not issued proposed regulations for current good manufacturing practices, and formal safety substantiation guidelines remain unpublished. A proposed rule on fragrance allergen labeling was expected by May 2026.²⁴²⁵ The FDA released draft guidance in December 2025 on mandatory cosmetics recalls and followed in January 2026 with guidance on records access, clarifying that it can inspect adverse event reports, recall documents, and consumer complaints, but not proprietary formulations, financial data, or personnel records. The FDA’s anticipated ban on formaldehyde in hair straighteners missed its December 31, 2025 deadline, and the agency withdrew a proposed rule on standardized asbestos testing methods for talc-containing products in November 2025 to harmonize federal definitions.¹² Those missed deadlines leave gaps in the framework at a time when courts are increasingly willing to let consumers press private claims to fill them.

1
Top Class Actions. Dove Class Action Claims Body Wash Falsely Advertised as Hypoallergenic
2
Truth in Advertising. Dove Sensitive Hypoallergenic Body Wash
3
Top Class Actions. Dove Class Action Alleges Retinol Body Wash Doesn’t Provide Advertised Benefits
4
ClassAction.org. Dove Men’s Deodorant With ‘No Alcohol’ Contains Benzyl Alcohol, Class Action Alleges
5
Top Class Actions. P&G Sued Over Unscented Deodorant Allegedly Made With Fragrance Ingredients
6
Cosmetics and Toiletries. Class Action Against Ulta Beauty Over Clean Ingredient Claims Advances
7
BeautyMatter. Ulta Faces Class Action Lawsuit
8
BeautyMatter. MAC Cosmetics Biometric Blind Spot
9
Global Cosmetics News. ELF Beauty Class Action Over Biometric Data to Proceed
10
Washington Journal of Law, Technology & Arts. Lipsticks and Lawsuits: The Legal Consequences of Virtual Glam
11
ClassAction.org. Beauty Lawsuit News
12
Cosmetics and Toiletries. Beauty Under Fire: Why 2026 Will Be a Pivotal Year for Consumer Safety and Environmental Accountability
13
PR Newswire. Tom’s of Maine Class Action Settlement Notice
14
Toothpaste Settlement. Tom’s of Maine Toothpaste Settlement
15
ClassAction.org. Class Action Lawsuit Alleges RevitaLash, RevitaBrow Serums Can Cause Undisclosed Side Effects
16
Government of Canada. Estée Lauder Cosmetics Ltd. Fined $750,000 for Violating the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999
17
Government of Canada. Estée Lauder Cosmetics Fined for Violating Canadian Environmental Protection Act
18
Environmental Health News. PFAS Cosmetics Lawsuits
19
Business of Fashion. Estée Lauder Forever Chemical Lawsuit
20
FDA. Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act 2022 (MoCRA)
21
MDL Update. MDL 3060 – Hair Relaxer
22
Lawsuit Information Center. Hair Relaxer Lawsuit
23
Sokolov Law. Talcum Powder Settlements
24
BIPC. Cosmetics Industry Update: What’s New With MoCRA
25
EcoMundo. Allergens in Cosmetics – United States