The 4 Hair Brands That Had Class Actions (And Are Still On The Shelves)

The full story

The FDA doesn’t issue safety alerts often. But in 2016, it issued one for a shampoo.

It was a $100 million hair care brand built on a simple promise: no harsh chemicals, no damage, just clean, healthy hair. Celebrities endorsed it, the marketing was slick, and women genuinely believed they’d finally found something different.

Then over 21,000 complaints came in. Major hair loss, bald patches, scalp burns and permanent damage. The lawsuit soon followed, and so did a $26.5 million settlement and an FDA safety alert. When the FDA was asked why it didn’t step in sooner, its answer was that it did not have the legal authority to require a cosmetics firm to provide product safety information.

Four major hair brands have been involved in class actions in the USA, and one is still going through the courts. So why did this only happen in America? The short answer: in the USA, no testing is needed and no approvals are needed. Brands can just put it on the shelf.

WEN: the cleansing conditioner

Chaz Dean was a Hollywood hairstylist with a real clientele and a real reputation, built on knowing what healthy hair actually looked like. He had a theory, and he built a brand around it. That brand was WEN.

His theory was simple. Regular shampoo was the problem: the sulfates, the detergents, the stripping. His solution was a cleansing conditioner. No lather, no harsh chemicals, just clean hair.

The WEN campaign was everywhere. Round the clock infomercials featured Brooke Shields, Alyssa Milano and Angie Harmon. These weren’t small print endorsements. The celebrities were the campaign, and the message was simple: regular shampoo damages your hair, and WEN fixes it in just one use.

For the woman watching from her couch, rushing to the school run or a 9am meeting and lucky to steal 15 minutes in the shower, that promise meant something. The celebrities endorsing WEN had stylists on call. The woman buying WEN was lucky if she got to the salon every six weeks. Nobody mentioned that difference.

Until it became impossible to ignore. Women who switched to WEN started losing hair. Not a little bit, but large patches of it. They were reporting it, and WEN was ignoring it.

21,000 consumer complaints were made. A class action was launched, alleging WEN was dissolving their hair like hair removal cream. What followed was a $26.5 million settlement, an FDA safety alert and a congressional inquiry into why it took so long.

The company’s response? There was no scientific evidence its products caused hair loss. WEN made millions and paid out millions. In America, that’s just the cost of doing business. WEN is still available today, still sold through infomercials.

OGX: the brand behind the baby shampoo promise

How is baby shampoo connected to a hair loss lawsuit?

Johnson & Johnson is the company behind No More Tears Baby Shampoo, a brand so trusted that generations of mothers have used it on their newborns without a second thought. J&J had publicly pledged to remove unsafe ingredients from its products.

Then in 2016 it acquired OGX, a brand that marketed itself as the number one hair repair brand: biotin, collagen, coconut oil and argan oil. It sounded effective, it sounded natural, and it was affordable.

But OGX contained an ingredient J&J had pledged not to use. When it’s stored somewhere warm and humid, it breaks down faster and releases formaldehyde, a recognized human carcinogen linked to hair loss, scalp irritation and dermatitis. Those hot, steamy showers were causing formaldehyde to be released.

The class action lawsuits started landing in 2021, with multiple filings across the country. Plaintiffs came from two angles. First, deceptive labeling: OGX marketed its products as safe and natural while including an ingredient linked to hair loss and scalp damage. Second, the pledge: Johnson & Johnson had publicly committed to removing this exact ingredient, then bought a brand still using it.

The lawsuits forced their hand. Only then did the formula change, and only on most products, because some OGX products still contain that ingredient today, years after the public commitment. It took a lawsuit, not a conscience. The lawsuits are still ongoing.

DevaCurl: from movement to class action

To understand what happened, you need to understand what DevaCurl was.

It started in 1994 with a single salon in New York City, founded by hairstylist Lorraine Massey, who changed the way women styled their curly hair. In 2002, DevaCurl launched its first “No Poo” cleanser: no sulfates, no parabens, no silicones. In 2007, it opened an academy training hairstylists in the Deva Cut.

By 2013 the brand had become a phenomenon. Social media was exploding, curl influencers were everywhere, and DevaCurl ambassadors were posting their routines and transformations online. For women who had spent years fighting their natural texture, curly hair was finally understood and celebrated. For millions of them, DevaCurl wasn’t just a product. It was part of a movement.

Behind the scenes, though, the brand was changing. In 2013 DevaCurl was sold to a private equity firm. In 2017 it was sold again. It had started with a clear philosophy and a founder who believed in every ingredient, but with every new owner, that founding philosophy became a little less important. Was that the downfall of a once iconic brand? Only DevaCurl knows.

What we do know is that something was shifting. Women were noticing their hair was changing: frizz where there used to be ringlets, shedding in the shower, scalp irritation. A small Facebook group was started about DevaCurl damaging hair.

Then on January 31, 2020, Ayesha Malik posted a video called “Why I Stopped Using DevaCurl.” She had used DevaCurl every single day for six years. She wasn’t paid; she promoted it because she genuinely believed in it. Her video blew up. The Facebook group went from 4,000 members to 14,000 in days, and influencers who had been quietly worried started speaking up, posting photos of bald spots, clumps of fallen hair and irritated scalps.

DevaCurl’s response? The hair loss wasn’t from its products. It was caused by stress, dandruff, weight loss or giving birth. Women who were dedicated DevaCurl users were being told it was their fault.

The class action was launched, and in January 2022 a $5.2 million settlement was finalized. DevaCurl denied any wrongdoing. It was reformulated and is still being sold.

TRESemmé and Suave: what Unilever knew

When you hear the backstory to TRESemmé, you have to ask yourself: is this incompetence, or is it just the cost of doing business in America?

Unilever is one of the biggest consumer goods companies on the planet. It owns hundreds of household brands, and two of them are hair care giants: Suave and TRESemmé. To understand what happened with TRESemmé, we need to go back to 2012.

In 2012 Unilever recalled Suave Professionals Keratin Infusion. Women were reporting hair loss and scalp burns. The ingredient at the center of the complaints was DMDM hydantoin, the same formaldehyde releasing preservative from the OGX story. A lawsuit was filed that same year, and in 2016, after years of litigation, the $10.25 million settlement was upheld by the courts.

Here’s what makes this story extraordinary. While that Suave lawsuit was still working its way through the courts, TRESemmé customers were already complaining. They left product reviews describing hair falling out in clumps, noticeable bald spots and scalp burns. The products were TRESemmé Keratin Smooth and TRESemmé Keratin Smooth Color, both marketed as making hair smooth and shiny, and both containing DMDM hydantoin, right there on the label.

And here’s the detail that’s hard to get past. Unilever’s own website stated that DMDM hydantoin is safe for use in its products. But on that same website, it noted that the ingredient is not used in its baby care products. Safe enough to sell to women, but kept away from babies.

The class action was filed in December 2020, with filings in Pennsylvania, Illinois, California and New Jersey, all consolidated together. Unilever’s response was that its products are safe and comply with industry standards.

The formula was quietly changed. But unlike Suave in 2012, there was no recall. Old stock with DMDM hydantoin stayed on shelves and was still sold online. Women had no way of knowing which formula they were buying.

Why only in America?

The class actions against these four brands have one thing in common: they only happened in America. Why?

Think about the products in your bathroom. The shampoo that promises to repair damage, the conditioner that claims to restore strength, the leave in treatment that says it will transform your hair. Big claims, bold promises.

Now think about a throat lozenge, a bandage or an antifungal cream. They make far more modest claims, yet every one of them had to clear testing and regulatory scrutiny before reaching the shelf, because they’re classified as medicines.

Your shampoo is classified as a cosmetic, and cosmetics in America require no safety testing before they go on sale. No approvals, no reviews, and no proof that the bold promises are even true. The moment a shampoo says it treats a condition, like dandruff, it crosses into drug territory and faces higher scrutiny. So brands learn to walk right up to that line: “helps with” instead of “treats”, “strengthens” instead of “prevents loss”. Carefully worded claims, designed to sound medicinal without triggering the rules that would make them prove it.

USA vs Europe

In 2022, America passed its biggest update to cosmetics regulation in 80 years. Even so, the FDA lists just 11 prohibited or restricted ingredients for cosmetics, and the formaldehyde releasing preservative involved in three of these class actions is still permitted.

The European Union, meanwhile, has banned or restricted over 1,600 cosmetic ingredients. Major brands, including American brands, reformulate for European markets: safer formulas for European women. And the FDA itself explains that, apart from color additives, cosmetic ingredients don’t need government review or approval before a product goes on sale.

The big brands know how to make safer products. So why do they choose not to for the USA?