Brazilian Blowout Cancer Lawsuit Update (2026)

Let’s reset the record and get very clear on what this case actually is — and what it isn’t.

This is not Instagram rumor.

This is a current, active federal case.

Here’s what we know from primary court filings.

Case Overview

Original Filing:
Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri (Kansas City)
Case No.: 2316-CV26217
Filed: December 9, 2024

Removed To Federal Court:
U.S. District Court – Western District of Missouri
Federal Case No.: 4:25-cv-00014

So if you’re seeing 2025 references, that’s why — it was removed to federal court in January 2025.

Who Is Involved

There are two plaintiff groups in the same complaint.

1️⃣ Amanda Garavaglia

• Licensed hairstylist

• Began performing Brazilian Blowout services in 2008

• Alleged long-term occupational exposure

She claims:

• Infertility

• Uterine cancer

• Ovarian cancer

• Double mastectomy with reconstruction

• Increased future cancer risk

Her husband, John Garavaglia, brings a loss of consortium claim.

2️⃣ Minor Child M.M. (via Kirk & Megan Matson)

Megan Matson was a hairstylist who used Brazilian Blowout while pregnant in 2014.

The complaint alleges prenatal exposure caused:

• Childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL)

The child is represented by her parents/guardians.

So to be precise:

It is Amanda Garavaglia + minor child M.M. (via the Matsons) in one federal case.

Who Is Being Sued

The defendants are:

• GIB, LLC (doing business as Brazilian Blowout)

• Brazilian Professionals, LLC

• SSG, LLC (Salon Service Group – distributor and training provider)

The complaint refers to GIB and Brazilian Professionals collectively as “Defendant Brazilian Blowout.”

Core Allegations

The complaint alleges:

• The products contained formaldehyde and other hazardous chemicals.

• Heating the product released formaldehyde gas.

• The product was marketed as “formaldehyde free.”

• OSHA, FDA, Health Canada, NIOSH, and Cal/OSHA identified elevated formaldehyde levels in prior investigations.

• The company continued to deny hazards after testing and regulatory warnings.

• Distributor training (SSG) failed to warn stylists of occupational risks.

• Maternal exposure during pregnancy caused leukemia in the child plaintiff.

Legal claims include:

• Negligence

• Negligent training

• Strict liability (design defect)

• Strict liability (failure to warn)

• Fraudulent concealment

• Breach of warranty

• Loss of consortium

• Punitive damages

These are allegations in a complaint.
They have not been proven in court.

How This Is Different From 2012

The earlier Brazilian Blowout controversy focused on:

• Mislabeling

• Marketing claims

• Regulatory enforcement

• Financial settlements

• Injunctive relief

This case is different.

This is about:

• Personal injury

• Cancer causation

• Prenatal exposure

• Punitive damages

• Long-term occupational harm

That is a completely different legal posture.

This is not the only active salon-related cancer litigation.

In a separate federal case, a longtime stylist alleges bladder cancer linked to professional hair dye exposure.
You can read my full breakdown of that case here

Where the Case Actually Stands (Early 2026)

Here’s the real procedural status:

✔ The case was removed to federal court.
✔ A federal judge is overseeing it.
✔ Plaintiffs filed a motion to remand (to send it back to state court).
✔ The court has been addressing early jurisdiction and scheduling issues.
✔ There is related insurance coverage litigation over who pays defense costs.

What has not happened yet:

✘ No ruling on whether the products caused cancer.
✘ No trial date.
✘ No settlement announcement.
✘ No expert testimony has been tested in court yet.

This case is in the early federal litigation phase.

What Will Decide This Case

This case will not be decided by Instagram.

It will be decided by:

• Toxicology experts

• Epidemiology data

• Exposure reconstruction

• Medical causation testimony

• Daubert challenges (expert admissibility hearings)

Linking:

• Occupational exposure

• Specific product formulation

• Specific cancer diagnosis

• And prenatal exposure → childhood leukemia

… is scientifically and legally complex.

That is where this case will rise or fall.

What Happens Next

In federal product-liability litigation, the likely next steps are:

1. Ruling on remand

2. Motions to dismiss

3. Fact discovery

4. Expert disclosures

5. Daubert motions

6. Mediation

7. Trial (if not resolved earlier)

Major federal cases can take years.

 Receipts, Links, and More: 

Salon Chemical Exposure + Cancer Risks: What Hairstylists Need to know  

The Reality Check

This is a live case.

It contains serious allegations.

Nothing has been proven.

Both sides will litigate aggressively.

If you are a stylist, the takeaway is not panic.

The takeaway is awareness, ventilation, PPE, and understanding chemical exposure in your workplace.

If you are following this case professionally, follow the docket — not social media commentary.

We are operating from primary documents now.

And that’s how this conversation should stay.