By: Madison Bruner

Although the beauty industry thrives on creativity and artistry, few consumers would risk their lives or health for glamour. In early 2025, three hairstylists filed lawsuits in California against L’Oreal, Wella, Redken, and Paul Mitchell, alleging that these beauty giants and others sold products with carcinogenic chemicals that caused bladder cancer, without providing consumers any warning of the associated risks.

The complaints for the lawsuits can be viewed below:

1. Hector Corvera v. L’Oreal USA Inc. et al filed on February 13, 2025;
2. Debra Matarazzo v. Henkel AG & Co. KGaA et al filed on March 6, 2025; and
3. Sharon Mirtaheri v. L’Oreal USA Inc. et al filed on April 28, 2025.

Breaking Down the Lawsuits Against L’Oreal, Wella, Redken, Paul Mitchell, and Procter & Gamble

The primary health concern underpinning these lawsuits is an alleged increased risk of developing bladder cancer associated with the long-term use of hair dye products. The plaintiffs filed a civil suit in the state of California alleging products liability claims such as failure to warn, design defect, breach of warranty of merchantability, and various negligence claims. California’s robust consumer protection laws and a strong unfair competition statute (California Unfair Competition Law) give the plaintiff hairdressers powerful tools to pursue legal remedies.

Failure to Warn – Strict Liability

Manufacturers have a legal duty to warn consumers about potential health risks. The defendants are accused of failing to provide adequate warnings about the carcinogenic chemicals in their products. To prevail on a failure to warn theory a plaintiff must show: (1) The product had potential risks known or knowable at the time of manufacture; (2) The manufacturer failed to adequately warn of those risks; (3) The lack of warning rendered the product dangerous beyond an ordinary user’s expectations; and (4) The inadequate warning was a substantial factor in causing injury.

Design Defect – Strict Liability

The defendants are accused of defective design of their hair dye products. The plaintiffs argue both a risk-utility theory (that feasible alternatives existed through botanical or amine-free formulas) and a consumer-expectations theory (that no consumer expects to get cancer from a hair dye). The plaintiffs further argue that the hair dye formulations, including the “ammonia-free” or “natural” lines contain known carcinogens that defendants could have eliminated without sacrificing function. 

A risk-utility test requires the plaintiff to show whether a reasonable person would determine that the probability of harm of the product will outweigh the burden or costs of taking precautions. Similarly, through the consumer allegation test, plaintiffs must show whether a reasonable person would consider the product defective. 

Negligence

The defendants are accused of both negligent failure to warn and gross negligence. For a negligent failure to warn claim, a plaintiff must show: (1) Defendant owed a duty to warn foreseeable users; (2) Defendant breached that duty by failing to provide adequate warnings; (3) The breach was a proximate cause of injury; and (4) Damages resulted. Gross negligence is a heightened degree of negligence and requires showing “conscious disregard” for safety.

Breach of Warranty

The defendants are accused of breach of warranty, which occurs when a seller “fails to live up to the promises or guarantees they made about a product or service.” A breach of warranty can be expressed or implied. The plaintiffs broadly allege breach of warranty, meaning both express and implied breach of warranty is argued. Specifically, the plaintiffs claim that marketing materials and labels represented the dyes as safe, gentle, or even condition-protective, yet the products caused cancer.

Deceit by Concealment

The defendants are accused of deceit by concealment, with allegations that the defendants actively concealed known carcinogenic ingredients such as aromatic amines. The plaintiffs also allege the defendants lobbied to keep safety data from regulators. This suppression induced stylists to continue using the products, causing injury. Deceit by concealment requires a showing that the defendant conceals or suppresses a material fact, with knowledge of its falsity, intending to defraud, and the plaintiff justifiably relies on that fact. 

Fraud

Finally, the defendants are accused of fraud, as the plaintiffs allege that the defendants misrepresented on packaging and in advertising that the dyes were “safe” or “damage-free,” and did so knowing those representations were false. A claim of fraud requires the plaintiff to show: (1) A false representation of a material fact; (2) Defendant’s knowledge of its falsity; (3) Intent to induce reliance; (4) Justifiable reliance by plaintiff; and (5) Resulting damage.

Violations of CA Unfair Competition Law

Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 prohibits “any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice.” Firstly, the plaintiffs allege that the defendants’ conduct was unlawful by violating FDA labeling regulations requiring warnings on cosmetics. Secondly, the plaintiffs alleged unfair practices, that the defendants concealed known hazards while continuing to market dyes as safe. Finally, plaintiffs allege fraudulent activity, claiming that defendants misled consumers about safety and ingredient risks.

Scientific Studies Linking Hair Dye to Cancer

Multiple studies have confirmed the potential link between hair dye and cancer. A 2019 study reported higher instances of breast cancer among women who use permanent hair dye, as well as chemical straighteners. Studies finding statistically significant links with hair dye use by hairstylists and bladder cancer go back many years, with research displaying hairdressers of 10+ years were nearly twice as likely to develop bladder cancer versus those who had never worked as a hairdresser.

However, research results are mixed; a 2022 study conducting a systematic review of studies from 2000-2021 indicated that only one of the four studies found an increased risk of bladder cancer for hairdressers as compared to population controls. Regardless, the hair dye lawsuits stand on legitimate scientific evidence, and manufacturers, regulators, and consumers should take the claims seriously..

Behind the Formulas: Understanding the Alleged Carcinogens

Given there is a real risk of adverse health effects with long-term use of hair dye products, let’s break down the key chemicals you need to know about.

1. 4-Aminobiphenyl (4-ABP): Classified by IARC as a Group 1 (“carcinogenic to humans”) bladder carcinogen and by the NTP as “known to be a human carcinogen.” Studies have repeatedly detected 4-ABP in commercial hair dyes and in DNA adducts in bladder tissue, linking it mechanistically to bladder cancer via metabolic activation to a reactive nitrenium ion that binds DNA.
2. Ortho-Toluidine (o-Toluidine): IARC Group 1 and NTP “known human carcinogen.” O-Toluidine forms DNA adducts in bladder tissue through metabolic conversion to N-hydroxy-o-toluidine, causing mutations on prolonged exposure.
3. Benzidine (and benzidine-metabolites): A long-banned industrial dye still detected in some formulations. IARC lists benzidine as a Group 1 bladder carcinogen; metabolized derivatives likewise trigger DNA damage and cancer risk.
4. 2-Naphthylamine: Another IARC Group 1 bladder carcinogen historically used in dyes and still alleged to persist in minor amounts, with strong epidemiological ties to increased bladder-cancer incidence.
5. 4-Chloro-ortho-Toluidine: Classified by IARC as Group 2A (“probably carcinogenic to humans”). Detected in defendants’ dye lines and implicated in bladder-cancer risk.
6. 2,4-Diaminoanisole sulfate (4-methoxy-m-phenylenediamine sulfate): Identified by the FDA and NTP as a carcinogenic dye intermediate that is “reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen” and is used to achieve certain permanent-color shades.
7. 2,4-Diaminotoluene and Disperse Blue 1: Both listed by the NTP as “reasonably anticipated to be human carcinogens,” these intermediates remain in some permanent-dye formulations.
8. Basic Red 9 Monohydrochloride and 4,4′-Oxydianiline: Also flagged by the NTP as “reasonably anticipated to be human carcinogens,” used for red and other vivid shades.
9. Coal tars and coal-tar pitches: Classified by the NTP as “known carcinogens” and historically used as dye precursors; they introduce complex mixtures of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons linked to cancer.
10. Aniline and Aniline Hydrochloride: IARC Group 2A (“probably carcinogenic to humans”) and noted in occupational-exposure studies; these simple amines persist as minor components in various dye mixes.

Avoiding these listed chemicals is the safest way to minimize your exposure to carcinogens and protect your health. 

‘Natural’ Alternatives: Bona Fide or Bogus?

In response to health and environmental concerns, several hair color brands market themselves as natural, organic, or safer alternatives. A prime example is Aveda, which advertises its professional hair color line as “96% naturally derived” and PPD-free. PPD-free means Aveda products contain no p-phenylenediamine, but the products could still include other problematic intermediates or residues like 4-ABP, o-toluidine, and benzidine. Instead of using the p-phenylenediamine found in typical dyes, Aveda’s formulas use other dye molecules like p-aminophenol and 2,4-diaminophenoxyethanol (along with plant-based ingredients) to achieve color. 

So are these “natural” hair dyes safer? They do eliminate certain known harmful ingredients named in the complaints. For example, Aveda explicitly states it contains no coal-tar ingredients and no petrochemicals, which means it likely avoids the carcinogenic aromatic amines at issue. However, experts caution that “natural” doesn’t mean chemical-free or risk-free. Because these chemicals are newer, there is less research on their long-term health effects compared to the older chemicals.

#HairDyeLawsuit #ConsumerProtection #BeautyandCosmeticsSafety

By Olivia Bravo

In October 2023, Steven Anderegg, a 43-year old Wisconsinite, was indicted for knowingly producing at least one visual depiction of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct. Anderegg allegedly used a text-to-image generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) model called Stable Diffusion to “create thousands of realistic images of prepubescent minors.” In May 2024, Anderegg became the first person in the U.S. criminally charged for generating and distributing AI-created child sexual abuse material (CSAM). His case became a turning point for U.S. authorities, underscoring the legal and ethical challenges AI-generated CSAM poses, highlighting the need for clearer policies and enforcement strategies as they continue to grapple with regulating AI-generated explicit content. 

What is CSAM?

Child Sexual Abuse Material (CSAM) or “child pornography,” is any visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct involving a person less than 18 years old. Due to rapid technological advances, online child sexual exploitation and victimization have increased in scale and complexity. One of the current legal challenges of the new technological age is the use of AI. This is problematic in two ways: (1) offenders are able to use AI capability to create CSAM, and (2) AI models are being trained with CSAM.

Legal Precedents and Challenges

Under U.S. federal law, Child Sexual Abuse Material (CSAM) is considered illegal contraband and is not protected under the First Amendment. Statutes such as 18 U.S.C. §§ 2251, 2252, and 2252A criminalize the production, possession, and distribution of such material through any means of interstate or foreign commerce. 

However, AI-generated CSAM introduces legal complexities. Because some synthetic images do not involve identifiable victims, they may fall outside the scope of laws written before the advent of generative models. This raises questions about whether such material qualifies as illegal “depictions,” and how harm is defined in the absence of a real child.

To address emerging risks, lawmakers have begun to update and expand relevant legislation:

• The Protecting Children From Online Predators Act (The PROTECT Act) (S.151) extended prohibitions to include synthetic and computer-generated imagery of child sexual abuse, closing loopholes for non-photographic, “synthetic” CSAM.
  
• The Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), updated in January 2024, introduced stricter consent requirements and limited how children’s data can be collected and shared by online platforms, though it doesn’t directly address AI model training.
  
• California’s (LEAD) for Kids Act (AB 1064) takes a step further by targeting AI model development. It mandates parental consent for training AI on children’s data and requires developers to conduct risk assessments of potential harms.

Despite these efforts, no comprehensive federal framework yet exists to regulate the use of CSAM in AI training datasets or the creation of AI-generated abuse imagery. As the technology rapidly evolves, regulators face growing pressure to close these legal gaps while balancing free expression and innovation.

How AI Changes the Game

What is AI model training and how is it impacted by CSAM? An AI model is both a set of algorithms and the data used to train those algorithms so they can make accurate predictions based on consumer queries. The term “AI model training” refers to a process where the model is fed massive amounts of data, the results are examined, and the model output is tweaked to increase accuracy and efficacy. However, what happens when these models are trained on exploitative images of children found on a public dataset?

An investigation by Stanford Internet Observatory (SIO) revealed hundreds of known images of CSAM in an open dataset (LAION-5B) used to train popular AI models such as Stable Diffusion. Stable Diffusion is the same AI text-image generator that Steven Anderegg used to create hyper-realistic images of children. This creation of images from text is an example of harnessing the power of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GAI). GAI enables the creation of fake imagery, including synthetic media, digital forgery, and in this case, CSAM. GAI allows offenders to create hyper-real sexual abuse material that depicts the victimization of children, and can then be used to retrain AI datasets. A July 2024 report by the Internet Watch Foundation (IWF) found that since October 2023, there has been a clear web increase in AI-generated CSAM material, with more images uploaded onto the dark web, and more severe images in Category A abuse, indicating that perpetrators are more able to generate complex ‘hardcore’ scenarios. “AI-generated imagery of child sexual abuse has progressed at such an accelerated rate that the IWF is now seeing the first realistic examples of AI videos depicting the sexual abuse of children.”

Conclusion

Steven Anderegg may have been the first person in the U.S. prosecuted for generating AI-created child sexual abuse material, but he will not be the last. In this way, the technological advances brought on by AI force us to rethink harm and the accountability that we have as users of these platforms. As generative AI becomes more powerful and accessible, the risk of its misuse to produce, circulate, and train future models on CSAM escalates. For lawmakers, this means crafting forward-looking policies that not only criminalize synthetic abuse content but also prevent its proliferation through stricter oversight of training data and AI development practices.

#CSAM #ChildProtection #AITraining #WJLTA 

By: Joseph Valcazar

Every year, the National Football League (NFL) hosts its draft, an opportunity for each of the 32 teams to select players who have just finished their time at the collegiate level in hopes of building the next Super Bowl winning roster. As a result, every year, over 200 young men have their professional football dreams realized in what becomes one of the most pivotal moments in their life. Sometimes teams make a pick that surprises fans and experts — selecting a player earlier or later than expected. Dedicated fans are fast to voice their opinions of these choices, making their thoughts known on social media or to fellow fans, but a fan filing a lawsuit in response to a draft pick would sound outlandish. That is until this year, when one man filed an intriguing lawsuit against the NFL in the aftermath of this year’s draft, and it revolves around one player: Shadeur Sanders. 

Shadeur the Football Player

Shadeur Sanders, the son of NFL Hall of Famer Deion Sanders, made a name for himself as a quarterback during his college career. As the starting quarterback for the University of Colorado, Shadeur helped take a program that had won just one game in 2022 to nine wins and a bowl game appearance in 2024. In his senior season Shadeur broke multiple school records and won the Johnny Unitas award, which is given to the top upperclassman quarterback. This collegiate success showed that he could play the sport at a high level, and a future in the NFL seemed inevitable, leading experts and fans alike to believe Shadeur was a lock to be an early pick in this year’s draft. All of this discourse made the actual events of the draft shocking for everyone.

Draft Disaster

Sport talking heads love to make predictions, especially where they think specific players will get drafted. For a time, Shadeur was considered to be a number one pick contender. Over time the general consensus shifted to quarterback Cam Ward being drafted number one overall (which became true). Leading up to the draft, analysts still had Shadeur as the second quarterback to be selected. In early April, just a few weeks before the draft was set to begin, the New Orleans Saints — who held the 9th pick — were the betting favorites to select Shadeur. Falling to the second round was viewed as a surprising “slip” for the highly discussed prospect. 

No one could have predicted what would transpire during the draft. Not only was Shadeur not the second quarterback selected, or the third … or the fourth … or even the fifth; Shadeur was the sixth quarterback to be drafted, getting selected at pick number 144 in the fifth round (of seven) to the Cleveland Browns. Instantly, questions started being asked: how could this have happened?

For one Shadeur Sanders fan, only one thing could explain what happened … collusion.

The “Lawsuit”

An anonymous man from Georgia has filed a lawsuit in federal court against the NFL, alleging collusive antitrust violations, civil rights violations, and personal emotional distress. To top it all off, he is asking for a formal apology from the NFL and $100 million in damages for the harm the NFL’s actions caused his “emotional well-being.” The basis of these claims? Reportedly leaked statements from NFL personnel that Shadeur “tanked interviews,” “wasn’t prepared,” and was “too cocky” during his pre-draft meetings. Describing these statements as “slanderous,” the John Doe plaintiff believes these statements reflect the NFL’s bias and intention to harm Shadeur. 

At this point, you may be saying to yourself, “Does this all seem a bit ridiculous?” And you would be correct. The claims presented here are shaky at best. The plaintiff likely lacks standing to bring any of the claims presented. Standing requires a party to have some kind of connection to the harm being challenged. In federal court, a three-part test has been developed to determine a party’s standing. These include:

• Injury in Fact: The injury suffered is concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent;
• Causal Connection: The defendant’s conduct is traceable to the plaintiff’s injuries; and
• Redressible: A favorable decision must be likely, not speculative, to redress the injuries.

The plaintiff in this instance is likely to struggle to meet the injury-in-fact element. To show that the injury was particularized, the plaintiff would have to show that he was affected in a “personal and individual way.” This is not met for both the antitrust and civil rights claims. There is no personal connection that ties these claims to the anonymous plaintiff. If anyone could bring these types of claims, it would be Shadeur himself, as he would be the one who suffered a particularized injury. 

Unsurprisingly, the man’s emotional distress claims also face critical standing issues. While this claim at least relates to a “harm” suffered by the plaintiff, he will be grasping at straws to establish a causal connection from Shaduer’s drop in the draft and any alleged emotional distress. While sports are known for their passionate die hard fans — I can admit that my Sunday moods are often influenced by the result of my favorite team’s game — claiming that the spot a specific player was drafted at (they still made it to the NFL) has resulted in “trauma” and “psychological harm” is a stretch, and one that a federal court is unlikely to be a fan of.

An interesting procedural note is that this lawsuit was filed in forma pauperis (Latin for “as a poor person”), which allows an indigent plaintiff to sue without incurring court costs. This is a request made to the court which has the discretion to approve or disapprove such a request. Typically, the natural next step once a complaint has been filed is for the named defendants to file any pre-answer motions if available or an answer. But in an in forma pauperis manner, the court is statutorily required to dismiss a claim at any time if the suit is frivolous or malicious. A lawsuit is frivolous when a claim lacks any basis in law or fact. This means the court could dismiss the lawsuit without any action from the NFL. 

The court has granted the plaintiff’s in forma pauperis request. The judge has also directed their clerk to submit the matter for a frivolity determination consistent with the federal statute. Eugene Volokh, a UCLA law professor, believes the court will determine this case to be frivolous, and it’s hard to disagree. The claims are highly speculative and lack concrete, substantiated evidence.

Conclusion

Every once in a while, you see a miracle Hail Mary play occur at the end of an NFL game. Describing this lawsuit as a Hail Mary would be generous. By all accounts, this case is set up to be tossed without the NFL having to lift a finger. However, it will be a fun footnote when looking back on one of the most talked-about and controversial NFL draft stories. Shadeur will compete for the starting position this coming season, and for the sake of one Georgia man’s psychological well-being, I hope it happens. 

#NFLDraft #SportsLaw #ShadeurSanders #WJLTA

By Wolf Chivers

Predatory Game Design

Did you know that video game addiction is a condition recognized by the World Health Organization? As more and more games have implemented microtransactions, countries around the world have started considering whether those games should be regulated as a form of gambling. Certainly people sometimes spend incredible amounts of money on in-game microtransactions, especially in the form of loot boxes that provide randomized in-game benefits in exchange for actual money. So when parents hear that their kids are potentially getting addicted to video game gambling, what then is likely to happen? Lawsuits—lots and lots of lawsuits. 

Identifying Claims

What exactly aggrieved parents might claim in those lawsuits, however, is not as clear as it might seem at first glance. Many countries in the world are considering regulating loot boxes as some form of gambling, but have not yet explicitly done so, which narrows the options for parents. What is left? Is it negligence on the part of the game companies? Maybe one could argue that the companies have ignored known risks in their design, but the companies are not making these games by reckless mistake. The core of some of the lawsuits is that the companies are intentionally making the games as addictive as possible. If so, it seems like some sort of intentional tort. However, most of the classic intentional torts that someone might come up with at first glance—assault, battery, trespass, and the like—do not seem intuitively to fit. 

If the claim is not negligence and not obviously an intentional tort, it might seem to leave plaintiffs in an awkward spot. The games represent a peculiar intersection between the fact that the games are fun, widely-enjoyed activities that are harmless in moderation, and the fact that they are also designed to be addictive and can cause great harm when abused. In short, the game practices have many of the same issues as conventional gambling, target a much younger demographic, and lack equal regulatory oversight. If game companies say “This isn’t gambling; all we did is make a fun game,” are there legal theories plaintiffs could still use? There are at least two that the plaintiffs are currently claiming—that the games are defectively designed and that the companies failed to provide adequate warnings of the safety risks. 

Design Defect

The strongest claim available to the plaintiffs in these lawsuits may be in product liability; that is, alleging that the games were defectively designed. A design defect is a flaw in a product that was produced as intended (contrasted with a manufacturing defect), and works as intended, which then produces harm to consumers. In order to show a design defect, the plaintiffs at least must show that the product posed a foreseeable risk of danger to a consumer using it for its intended purpose. That much is likely easy; the possible harms and dangers of video game addiction are wide-ranging and encompass everything from financial harm to long-term mental health challenges. 

In some jurisdictions, however, the plaintiffs also must show that there was a reasonable alternative design, both practically and economically, which is potentially more difficult. If the companies have designed the games to be as addictive as possible, and therefore bring in as much money as possible, any less-addictive alternative designs are logically likely to bring in less money. There are, however, at least some alternatives that seem eminently reasonable; Epic Games settled with the FTC over allegations that, among other things, Fortnite players were tricked into spending money simply by confusing button layouts. Additionally, even if the games were to adopt less-addictive designs, they would likely still be worth billions of dollars, which certainly seems to indicate that they could be less addictive without being significantly less economically viable.

Failure to Warn

Game companies may rebut a design defect argument by suggesting that the games’ designs are not defective or inherently harmful—there are plenty of people who play them safely, and consumers presumably want the games to be as fun as possible. The addictiveness, the argument might run, is a feature, not a bug, distinct from something like a brake failure in a vehicle line. If so, plaintiffs could fall back on a claim that the companies failed to warn consumers of the inherent risks.

A failure to warn claim alleges that the company failed to provide adequate warnings about the risks of using a product, or instructions on how to do so safely. Game companies are no strangers to the process of supplying warnings; for instance, game consoles already have extensive, in-depth Health and Safety sections in their manuals that cover a broad range of known risks. If the plaintiffs can show that the game companies intentionally designed their games to be addictive, failing to provide warnings to that effect is a strong claim. 

The two common defenses in failure to warn cases are that the risk was obvious, or that the misuse was unforeseeable, neither of which seems likely to work to the game companies’ benefit. First, at least in some cases the purpose of the design was to trick people into spending money, in which case at least some of the risks are patently non-obvious. Second, the use to which the consumers put the games, i.e. playing them, was not only entirely foreseeable, it was the whole point. A failure to warn claim thus seems likely to succeed.

Conclusion

Even though design defects and failures to warn seem like strong claims, they also seem vaguely unsatisfying given the degree of harm and manipulation involved. At least one man spent over $16,000 in approximately a year and may have ruined his life. Anyone might easily feel wronged if they later discovered the games were designed to suck that much money out of them, and that example involved a mature adult. If, as alleged, game companies are intentionally getting impressionable children addicted to their games to milk as much money out of them and their parents as humanly possible, with no regard for the harms it may cause or the long-term damage to the children, lawsuits over whether there were enough warnings in the manual seem trite.

Given the current state of regulation, however, it is not entirely clear what else those impacted by the games’ predatory designs ought to do. There is also no easy answer for regulators, since the games likely should not be outlawed entirely. Even so, at a bare minimum, children should not be the target audience. Minimum age laws akin to restrictions on casinos or other forms of gambling would at least reduce the risk to some of the most vulnerable, and might provide a clear legal framework for plaintiffs to use if game companies continue targeting children.

#WJLTA #videogames #microtransactions #lootboxes #gambling #productliability #addiction