Olaplex Sued Over Hair Loss, Bald Spots, and Hidden Allergens

Nearly 30 women filed a federal lawsuit against Olaplex Holdings Inc. and manufacturer Cosway Co. Inc. in February 2023, alleging that the brand’s haircare products caused hair loss, bald spots, open scalp wounds, and severe allergic reactions. The plaintiffs claim Olaplex marketed its products as safe and scientifically proven while concealing ingredients known to cause harm.

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, covers Olaplex No. 1 through No. 9 products. A second, unrelated class action filed in April 2024 accused Olaplex of falsely labeling products as “Made in USA.” That case settled in 2025. The original hair injury lawsuit was denied class action status in July 2023, though individual claims remain legally viable.

Olaplex Lawsuit Timeline and Updates

2014 to 2021 — Olaplex Rises and Lilial Concerns Emerge

Olaplex launched in 2014 with a patented bond-repair technology. The brand went public in 2021 at an initial valuation of approximately $15 billion. Products sold at Sephora, Ulta, and salons worldwide were marketed as safe, effective, and proven by science.

Behind the marketing, one ingredient was drawing scrutiny. Olaplex No. 3 Hair Perfector contained lilial, chemically known as butylphenyl methylpropional. In 2020, the EU’s Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety classified lilial as reprotoxic, meaning it causes reproductive harm and may damage fetal development. The EU mandated its removal from all hair and cosmetic products by March 2022.

Sephora required Olaplex to remove lilial from ingredient lists sold through its platform in 2020 or early 2021. Olaplex did not remove the ingredient from products sold elsewhere in the U.S. and EU until February 2022. During that gap, old inventory containing lilial remained on shelves.

February 2022 — Lilial Removed, Inventory Still Circulating

Olaplex publicly reformulated its products and removed lilial. The lawsuit would later allege this was too late. Products already manufactured and stocked in stores continued to be sold to consumers who had no way of knowing what was in the bottle they were buying.

The complaint argues Olaplex should have recalled the lilial-containing inventory rather than allowing it to sell through. No recall was issued.

February 9, 2023 — Federal Lawsuit Filed in California

A group of 28 women filed a 61-page complaint in U.S. District Court, Central District of California against Olaplex Holdings Inc. and Cosway Co. Inc. The plaintiffs met each other in a Facebook group where they had gathered to compare their hair damage experiences and figure out the common thread.

The complaint names products from the Olaplex No. 1 through No. 9 line. It alleges these products caused major hair loss, hair breakage, bald spots, open sores, and scalp burning. Lead plaintiff Jessica Auriana reported significant hair loss after just two months of use. She had started the products on the recommendation of her hairdresser.

The lawsuit seeks compensatory and punitive damages exceeding $75,000. It demands a jury trial. The filing names both Olaplex Holdings and manufacturer Cosway Co. Inc. as defendants.

March 2023 — Olaplex Denies All Allegations

Olaplex issued a public statement denying the claims. The company maintained that its products are safe and effective, citing millions of satisfied customers. Olaplex pointed to a wide variety of factors that cause hair loss, including lifestyle, medications, COVID-19 aftereffects, and skin conditions.

The company also posted results from third-party lab testing, including Human Repeat Insult Patch Tests. This is a standard safety evaluation used across the personal care industry. Olaplex argued the results confirmed product safety and efficacy.

June to July 2023 — Class Action Denied

By June 2023, the lawsuit had grown to over 100 plaintiffs. Attorneys sought class action certification, which would have allowed all plaintiffs to be tried as a single group. U.S. District Judge R. Gary Klausner denied that request in July 2023.

The ruling found that the plaintiffs’ claims were too varied for class certification. Each plaintiff experienced different products, different usage patterns, different injuries, and different alleged causes. That variation is the legal standard for why class treatment fails.

Following the denial, all claims except the first named plaintiff’s were dismissed from the consolidated action. The lead plaintiff then voluntarily dismissed her case without prejudice a few weeks later. Without prejudice means she retains the right to refile.

April 2024 — “Made in USA” Class Action Filed

A separate class action, Atamian v. Olaplex Inc. et al., Case No. 37-2024-00018492, was filed in April 2024. This lawsuit had nothing to do with hair injuries. It alleged that Olaplex labeled its shampoo, conditioner, and hair treatment products as “Made in USA” while they actually contained foreign-sourced ingredients. The complaint stated Olaplex “deliberately and illegally” misled consumers for economic gain.

2025 — “Made in USA” Case Settles for $5 Voucher

The “Made in USA” class action settled. Class members who purchased covered Olaplex products between February 7, 2019 and September 6, 2024 were eligible to file a claim. The settlement payout was a $5 voucher redeemable on the Olaplex website. The claim filing deadline was May 12, 2025. Final court approval was estimated around September 12, 2025.

The $5 voucher drew criticism from consumer advocates as a minimal remedy for a deceptive labeling practice that spanned years and millions of products.

What the Olaplex Lawsuit Alleges

The 2023 hair injury lawsuit rests on three pillars: harmful ingredients, deceptive marketing, and a failure to warn.

On ingredients, the complaint focuses on lilial, panthenol, sodium benzoate, and ascorbic acid. Lilial, as discussed, was linked to reproductive toxicity and classified reprotoxic by the EU. Panthenol, a form of vitamin B5, can trigger allergic reactions and contact dermatitis in sensitive individuals. Sodium benzoate and ascorbic acid, when combined in the same formulation, can form benzene, a recognized carcinogen.

The complaint also alleges that certain non-water-soluble ingredients in Olaplex products cause clogged hair follicles. Clogged follicles lead to seborrheic dermatitis. That inflammation, sustained over repeated use, causes hair loss.

On marketing, the lawsuit argues Olaplex made false claims. The brand stated products “restore damaged and compromised hair,” create “healthy, beautiful, shiny, touchable hair,” and that results are “proven by science.” Plaintiffs say those promises were false and that the company knew it.

On the failure to warn, the complaint argues Olaplex concealed the dangers long enough that plaintiffs attributed their hair and scalp symptoms to personal health conditions. Several plaintiffs reported seeking medical consultations, believing something serious was wrong with their health, before connecting their symptoms to the products.

Injuries and Side Effects Alleged

The 61-page complaint documents a range of injuries across the nearly 30 named plaintiffs. Hair loss is the most common. Multiple women report bald patches in areas where hair once grew normally. Some describe sudden and significant shedding within weeks of starting Olaplex products.

Scalp injuries reported include burning, open sores, blistering, flaking, and inflamed skin consistent with allergic contact dermatitis. Several plaintiffs report that their hair became dry, brittle, frizzy, and dull, the opposite of what the products promised.

One plaintiff reported hair loss to the point of requiring medical intervention. Others describe ongoing psychological harm from the visible damage to their appearance.

The Lilial Problem

Lilial is the ingredient at the center of the most serious allegations. Its chemical name is butylphenyl methylpropional. It is a synthetic fragrance additive widely used in cosmetics for its floral scent.

The EU Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety determined in 2020 that lilial is a strong allergen. It also classified the ingredient as reprotoxic, meaning it is harmful to reproduction and may cause developmental harm to a fetus. The EU required removal by March 2022.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration had not issued a comparable ban. But the EU designation put the global beauty industry on notice. According to the Environmental Working Group, lilial has endocrine-disrupting properties, meaning it can interfere with natural hormone function.

The Olaplex complaint focuses on the timeline. Sephora required removal in 2020 or 2021. Olaplex removed it from reformulated products in February 2022. Old inventory with lilial remained on sale after that date. Plaintiffs allege Olaplex knew of the EU findings and continued selling without a recall.

Scientific Evidence and Dermatology Context

Independent experts offered mixed assessments of the causation claims. Dr. Chesahna Kindred, a board-certified dermatologist, told BuzzFeed News that a single topical application is unlikely to cause hair loss unless the user has a specific allergy to an ingredient. That framing matters for individual claims where repeated use is alleged.

The EU ban on lilial was based on reproductive toxicity studies conducted in animals, not direct human trials on hair loss. The plaintiffs’ legal theory does not require proving lilial causes hair loss in isolation. It requires showing that Olaplex’s products, as formulated, caused harm to these specific users and that Olaplex failed to warn them.

Olaplex’s third-party testing used Human Repeat Insult Patch Tests. Critics of that approach note that HRIPT evaluates skin sensitization under controlled conditions, not the cumulative effects of repeated scalp application over weeks or months.

Who Can File a Claim

Class action certification was denied in July 2023. That ruling does not prevent individual plaintiffs from pursuing their own lawsuits against Olaplex. It only means they cannot be bundled into a single class proceeding.

Anyone who used Olaplex No. 1 through No. 9 products and experienced hair loss, bald spots, scalp burns, sores, or severe dryness and breakage may have grounds for an individual product liability or negligence claim. A person who used products purchased before February 2022 may have additional exposure arguments related to lilial.

Consulting a product liability attorney is the recommended first step. Statute of limitations rules vary by state. California’s discovery rule allows the clock to start from when the plaintiff learned or should have learned that their injury was caused by the product.

Defendant Response

Olaplex Holdings Inc. has consistently denied all allegations. The company states its products are safe and effective, backed by science and third-party testing. It maintains that the types of hair loss and scalp complaints described in the lawsuit have many possible causes unrelated to Olaplex.

Cosway Co. Inc., the manufacturer named alongside Olaplex Holdings, has not made prominent public statements separate from the brand’s official responses.

Olaplex has not issued any recalls. It removed lilial from its products and continued selling the reformulated line. The company treated the February 2022 reformulation as a routine product update rather than a safety correction.

The “Made in USA” Settlement

The separate 2024 class action focused entirely on labeling fraud, not physical harm. Atamian v. Olaplex alleged the company printed “Made in USA” on products that contained foreign-sourced ingredients. The complaint described this as a deliberate practice designed to justify premium pricing and appeal to consumers who prefer domestically made products.

The settlement covered U.S. purchasers of affected products from February 7, 2019 through September 6, 2024. Class members received a $5 voucher redeemable on Olaplex.com. The voucher cannot be converted to cash. It expires 12 months after issuance. The claim filing deadline passed on May 12, 2025. Final approval of the settlement was expected around September 12, 2025.

The settlement amount drew scrutiny. Consumers who paid premium prices partly based on a “Made in USA” representation received a $5 store credit usable only at the company that allegedly misled them.

What This Lawsuit Teaches Consumers

The Olaplex case is a lesson in the gap between marketing promises and ingredient transparency. A product can win beauty awards, command premium prices, and receive celebrity endorsements while simultaneously containing ingredients banned in other countries for known health risks.

The EU’s ban on lilial predated the U.S. lawsuit by years. American consumers had no equivalent regulatory warning. What they did have was a Facebook group where they noticed the same pattern of damage after using the same product.

That pattern matters legally and practically. When many people independently experience the same harm from the same product, it is not coincidence. It is evidence. The plaintiffs in the Olaplex case did exactly what consumers should do: they documented their injuries, found each other, and pursued accountability through the courts.

The class action denial in 2023 was a procedural setback, not an exoneration. It meant each plaintiff must prove their individual case. That is harder. It is also still possible.

The broader lesson is this: premium branding is not a safety certification. Ingredients that have been phased out in the EU for reproductive toxicity deserve scrutiny regardless of whether the FDA has acted. Consumers experiencing unexplained hair loss or scalp injuries should document their product use, preserve packaging, and consult both a dermatologist and a product liability attorney before the statute of limitations clock runs out.

Similar questions about corporate knowledge, delayed action, and consumer harm appear in the OGX shampoo lawsuit, where plaintiffs raised comparable allegations about hair damage and undisclosed carcinogens. The Depo-Provera lawsuit illustrates the same pattern in a pharmaceutical context: a company that continued selling after regulatory red flags emerged. The MaryRuth Organics lawsuit shows how contaminated consumer products end up on the market when manufacturing oversight fails. And the Suboxone tooth decay lawsuit demonstrates how a failure-to-warn claim can survive even when the company claims it was unaware of the risk.