The Madison Reed lawsuit landscape centers on two federal class actions alleging that the company’s at-home hair color, marketed as free of ammonia, PPD, and resorcinol, caused hair loss and scalp irritation because the replacement ingredients were themselves harmful. The California case was dismissed and the dismissal was affirmed on appeal in December 2023. The New York case survived a motion to dismiss in part and ended in a private settlement in November 2024 on undisclosed terms.
What the Lawsuits Alleged
Both cases attacked the same marketing strategy. Madison Reed’s packaging and website prominently advertised “Free of” claims for ammonia, PPD, resorcinol, parabens, phthalates, and gluten, and described the products as gentler and safer than traditional dyes.1Madison Reed. Dear Color Crew: Is Hair Color Safe to Use The plaintiffs said the substitutes were equally or more harmful.
The New York complaint went into the most detail. It alleged that Madison Reed replaced ammonia with ethanolamine, described as a known irritant derived from ammonia and the carcinogen ethylene oxide, and cited research indicating it can cause more damage to hair than the ammonia it replaced.2ClassAction.org. Chemicals in Madison Reed Hair Coloring Products Cause Hair Loss, Scalp Irritation The complaint also targeted PTDS (toluene 2,5-diamine sulfate), alleged to cause allergic reactions in half of individuals allergic to the PPD it replaced, and 2-methylresorcinol, identified as a potential endocrine disruptor.3ClassAction.org. Moore v. Madison Reed Complaint
The suit accused Madison Reed of receiving what it called a “waterfall of complaints” from customers reporting hair loss, breakage, shedding, and scalp irritation, and then deflecting them by blaming unrelated causes: pregnancy, surgery, hormonal birth control, stress, weight loss, even the type of pillowcases customers used.2ClassAction.org. Chemicals in Madison Reed Hair Coloring Products Cause Hair Loss, Scalp Irritation It further alleged the company falsely claimed its dyes could not penetrate the scalp, contradicting scientific consensus on dermal absorption.3ClassAction.org. Moore v. Madison Reed Complaint
The California Case Was Dismissed
In Brown v. Madison Reed, Inc. (Case No. 21-cv-01233-WHO), three plaintiffs sued in the Northern District of California under the state’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act, False Advertising Law, and Unfair Competition Law. Two named plaintiffs reported hair loss and scalp irritation after using the Radiant Hair Color Kits.4Casemine. Brown v. Madison Reed, 21-cv-01233-WHO
Judge William H. Orrick dismissed the case, and on December 13, 2023, the Ninth Circuit affirmed in an unpublished memorandum. The panel found that the “Free of” statements were factually accurate because the products genuinely did not contain ammonia, resorcinol, or PPD, and that the replacement ingredients were disclosed on the back label, so there was no actionable misrepresentation or deceptive omission.5Justia. Molly Brown v. Madison Reed, No. 22-16415 Website phrases like “Salon Gorgeous,” “Salon Quality,” and “Ingredients with Integrity” were treated as nonactionable puffery.6Metropolitan News-Enterprise. Consumer Laws: Ninth Circuit Affirms Dismissal in Brown v. Reed Many of one plaintiff’s claims were also time-barred, and the Ohio-resident plaintiff could not assert California consumer protection claims.
The New York Case Settled Privately
Moore v. Madison Reed, Inc. (Case No. 1:22-cv-00115) was filed on February 7, 2022, in the Northern District of New York. On August 9, 2023, Senior Judge Gary L. Sharpe issued a mixed ruling on the company’s motion to dismiss. Three claims were allowed to proceed: failure to warn, and two claims under New York General Business Law sections 349 and 350, which prohibit deceptive business practices and false advertising. Five claims were dismissed, including negligence, design defect, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, and a Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act claim.7Justia Dockets. Moore v. Madison Reed, 1:22-cv-00115 The court held that whether consumers were misled by Madison Reed’s marketing was a factual dispute that could not be resolved at the pleadings stage.8Bloomberg Law. Madison Reed Denied Early Exit From False Ad Suit Over Hair Dye
The surviving claims never went to trial. Moore filed a stipulation of dismissal on November 20, 2024, following a private settlement, and the court closed the case on November 25, 2024. Financial terms were not disclosed in the court file.2ClassAction.org. Chemicals in Madison Reed Hair Coloring Products Cause Hair Loss, Scalp Irritation
Why the Two Courts Split
The cases turned on how each court sorted marketing language into fact versus puffery. The Ninth Circuit treated the “Free of” labels as literally true and the aspirational website language as puffery. The New York court drew the line differently. It agreed that phrases like being an “honest” company or containing “ingredients you can feel good about” were puffery, but found that claims about products having “no harsh ingredients” and being “non-damaging” were factual representations that could support false advertising liability.9Davis Wright Tremaine. Stay Advised: Brand Protection That distinction is what kept the Moore claims alive long enough to reach a settlement.
What the Science Says
The allegations about ethanolamine draw some support from published research. A 2022 peer-reviewed study identified monoethanolamine as one of the primary ingredients responsible for hair dyeing-induced hair loss, alongside hydrogen peroxide and PPD, and found that monoethanolamine and hydrogen peroxide together can induce oxidative stress and cell toxicity in human skin cells.10National Library of Medicine. Hair Dye Ingredients and Potential Health Risks The study did not test Madison Reed’s specific formulations. Regulatory oversight of hair dye ingredients is also limited: the FDA’s authority has been constrained since 1938 by the coal-tar hair dye exemption, which spares such products from mandatory pre-market approval.11Drugwatch. Hair Dye Lawsuits
A Separate Biometric Privacy Case
One other Madison Reed class action is unrelated to hair damage and worth flagging so it isn’t confused with the product cases. In Goodell v. Madison Reed, Inc. (Case No. 1:23-cv-01471), filed March 9, 2023, in the Central District of Illinois, plaintiff Holly Goodell alleged that the company’s “Virtual Try-On” website feature collected and stored users’ face geometry data without prior written consent or the disclosures required by the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act.12ClassAction.org. Goodell v. Madison Reed Complaint That case involves data privacy rather than product safety, and its outcome is not tied to the hair-loss litigation.
Where Things Stand for Consumers
There is no active nationwide class settlement paying claims to customers who used Madison Reed products. The California case ended without any recovery for consumers. The New York settlement resolved one named plaintiff’s claims on terms the parties kept private, and the court’s docket does not reflect a classwide settlement fund. If you experienced hair loss or scalp irritation and are considering a claim, the practical takeaway from these rulings is that “Free of” labeling alone has not been enough to sustain a case, while claims tied to specific factual statements about safety and damage have had more traction, at least in New York.