If a relaxer, bleach or keratin treatment left your scalp blistered, your hairline burned or your hair coming out in patches, the salon and the stylist are responsible when the injury came from how the product was applied: left on too long, applied over broken skin, mixed too strong, or used without a strand or patch test. That is an ordinary negligence claim in California, with a two-year deadline under Code of Civil Procedure 335.1, and it is often paid by the salon’s liability insurance. If the injury came from the product itself, because it was contaminated, mislabeled or contained an ingredient California has banned, a separate product liability claim runs against the manufacturer and distributor.
The two claims are proven differently, and the line between them is drawn by a case called Hennigan v. White. This guide explains that line in plain terms, what a cosmetology license permits, how the Board of Barbering and Cosmetology complaint fits in, why California’s 2025 formaldehyde ban matters for keratin treatments, and what to document while the burn is still visible.
What a cosmetology license covers
Hairstylists in California are licensed under the Barbering and Cosmetology Act, Business and Professions Code 7301 and following, and regulated by the Board of Barbering and Cosmetology within the Department of Consumer Affairs. Applying relaxers, bleach and color is within the cosmetology scope in Section 7316. Section 7317 requires licensees to limit their services to the areas they are licensed for, and Section 7404 makes “incompetence or gross negligence, including failure to comply with generally accepted standards for the practice of barbering, cosmetology, or electrology or disregard for the health and safety of patrons” a ground for discipline, along with “repeated similar negligent acts.”
The Board’s own regulation on invasive procedures, 16 CCR 991, bars any licensee from using “a product, device, machine, or other technique” that results in “the removal, destruction, incision, or piercing of a client’s skin beyond the epidermis.” A chemical burn deep enough to scar generally involves damage beyond the epidermis.
Cosmetologists are not medical providers. Their chapter sits in Division 3 of the Business and Professions Code, while the medical malpractice statutes that shorten deadlines and cap damages apply to people licensed under Division 2. That matters for the deadline, discussed below.
The salon’s negligence, in practical terms
A peer-reviewed 2022 review of chemical straighteners in a Brazilian dermatology journal found that in some studies relaxers were “associated with eczema, desquamation, pain, burns, and inflammation in the scalp,” along with hair loss and damage to the hair shaft. The FDA’s consumer page on hair dye and relaxers says both “can hurt your skin, hair, and eyes, especially if you are not careful,” and tells consumers to report “itchy or raw skin, scabs, hair loss or other problems” to its MedWatch program.
The negligence question is whether the stylist did what a reasonably careful cosmetologist would do: asked about recent chemical services and scalp conditions, applied a protective base, kept the product off the skin, watched the clock, rinsed at the first complaint of burning, and neutralized completely. Suppose a client on Sherman Way said the product was burning and was told to hold on a few more minutes. That is a strong claim. The salon, as the stylist’s employer, is responsible for the stylist’s negligence, and if the stylist rents a chair as an independent contractor, both the stylist and the salon owner may be defendants depending on who controlled the service and the products.
Comparative fault comes up in these cases. Under Li v. Yellow Cab (1975), if you did something that contributed, such as not mentioning a home bleach from the week before, your recovery is reduced by your share rather than barred.
Hennigan v. White: why the salon is not the “seller”
People often assume that because the salon put the product on their head, the salon is strictly liable the way a store would be for a defective product it sold. In Hennigan v. White (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 395, a day spa customer developed granulomas and a bacterial infection after permanent makeup was applied to her eyebrows and eyelids. She sued the spa on a strict product liability theory, arguing the pigment was a defective product the spa had sold her. The Court of Appeal disagreed. Her “primary objective,” the court held, “was to obtain a service, that of having permanent makeup affixed to her eyebrows and eyelids.” She “did not walk into the salon simply to purchase a bottle of pigment for her own use.” Strict liability applies to sellers of products, and a salon performing a service is not one.
In plain terms: the salon is sued for negligence, meaning what the stylist did or did not do. The manufacturer and distributor of the relaxer, bleach or keratin product are sued in strict product liability, meaning whether the product was defective in design, manufacture or warnings, regardless of anyone’s carelessness. Sorting out which is which is why the product container, the batch number and the salon’s purchase records matter as much as the photographs of your scalp.
The keratin question and the 2025 formaldehyde ban
Keratin smoothing treatments raise product claims most often, because of formaldehyde. The FDA has warned that many hair smoothing products release formaldehyde when heated, that formaldehyde in the air “can cause serious irritation of your eyes, nose, and lungs,” and that “the greater the exposure, in terms of both duration and concentration,” the higher the risk. As of this writing, the FDA describes no final federal ban.
California went further. The Toxic-Free Cosmetics Act, Health and Safety Code 108980, provides that “commencing January 1, 2025, a person or entity shall not manufacture, sell, deliver, hold, or offer for sale in commerce any cosmetic product” containing intentionally added formaldehyde, paraformaldehyde, methylene glycol, quaternium-15, mercury or listed phthalates, parabens, phenylenediamines and PFAS. A second list, including trichloroacetic acid and styrene, is banned from January 1, 2027. A keratin product with intentionally added formaldehyde or methylene glycol that was sold to or held by a California salon after January 1, 2025 violates state law. For a burn or respiratory injury from such a product, that violation supports a negligence per se theory against the manufacturer, the distributor and the salon that kept it on the shelf, and Civil Code 1668 voids any release that tries to excuse a “violation of law, whether willful or negligent.”
The Board complaint
The Board of Barbering and Cosmetology handles complaints involving gross negligence or incompetence, unsanitary conditions, unlicensed practice and false advertising. Complaints must be in writing, filed online through breeze.ca.gov or by mail to the Board in Sacramento, and for a gross negligence complaint the Board asks for the establishment name and address, the operator’s name and license number, details of the incident, photographs, medical records and the receipt. You can verify the stylist’s and the salon’s licenses at search.dca.ca.gov before you file.
Be realistic about what the complaint does. The Board does not award compensation. It opens an investigation, which produces a written response from the salon and sometimes an inspection, and both become evidence in the civil claim. A stylist who tells the Board one story and the insurance company another has a problem.
What to do this week
- Photograph the burn, the blisters and any hair loss every day in the same light, with something for scale. Keep going for months. Scarring, pigment change and permanent hair loss show up after the initial injury has faded.
- See a dermatologist within days, or urgent care the same day for blistering or open skin. For a deep chemical burn, UCLA West Valley Medical Center in West Hills has a regional burn center. Tell the doctor exactly which product was used and how long it was on. That sentence in the chart is the causation proof.
- Get the product name, brand and, if possible, the container and batch number. Ask the salon before the relationship sours, or have a friend go in and photograph the shelf.
- Keep the receipt, the appointment confirmation and every message with the stylist or salon, including any apology or offer of free services.
- File the Board complaint and keep the confirmation.
- Do not sign a release in exchange for a refund or a free treatment, and do not let the same salon “fix” the damage before a dermatologist has seen it.
The two-year rule, and why it is two years
Because a cosmetologist is licensed under Division 3 and not Division 2 of the Business and Professions Code, a claim against the salon and stylist is ordinary negligence governed by Code of Civil Procedure 335.1: two years from the injury. The one-year medical malpractice period under Code of Civil Procedure 340.5 does not apply to a salon, and neither does the MICRA cap on noneconomic damages. If a physician or nurse was involved, for example a scalp treatment at a med spa, the analysis changes, and our guide to the California personal injury statute of limitations walks through both clocks. A product claim against the manufacturer is also two years. If the salon is inside a government facility, the six-month claim rule under Government Code 911.2 may apply.
Where premises liability comes in
Most salon chemical injuries are negligence in the service itself, but some are about the premises: a shampoo bowl that scalded because the water heater was set too high, or a fall on a wet tile floor while rinsing. Those follow Rowland v. Christian (1968), which holds every property owner to a duty of reasonable care, and turn on notice and the reasonableness of the fix. Our post on Rowland v. Christian and the duty of care explains how those cases are proven.
The salon’s insurance
Salons often carry general liability insurance, some carry professional liability coverage for their services, and chair renters may carry their own. A written demand to the owner is the usual way to learn the carrier’s name. From there the claim is documented the way any injury claim is: the medical chart, the photographs, the product evidence, the Board file, proof of time lost from work, and, for a facial or hairline scar or permanent hair loss, the effect on your appearance and your life. Medical costs are measured by the amounts actually paid or owed under Howell v. Hamilton Meats. Manoukian Law Firm handles these claims throughout California from its Chatsworth office. Our practice areas page and about page describe how the firm works, and our reviews page is where clients describe it.
Key points
- A chemical burn from a relaxer, bleach or keratin treatment is an ordinary negligence claim against the salon and stylist, with a two-year deadline under Code of Civil Procedure 335.1 and no MICRA cap.
- Under Hennigan v. White, a salon service is not a product sale, so strict product liability runs against the manufacturer and distributor, not the salon.
- California’s Toxic-Free Cosmetics Act bans intentionally added formaldehyde and methylene glycol in cosmetics sold in the state from January 1, 2025, which matters for keratin treatments.
- Photograph the injury daily, see a dermatologist within days, and get the product name and batch number.
- A Board of Barbering and Cosmetology complaint does not pay compensation but produces records that become evidence.
- Do not sign a release for a refund or free services.
Frequently asked questions
The stylist says I must have had a scalp condition already. Does that end the claim?
No. A pre-existing sensitivity is a reason for the stylist to ask questions and patch test rather than an excuse for skipping them. The dermatologist’s chart will document whether the injury pattern matches a chemical burn, and comparative fault under Li v. Yellow Cab reduces a recovery rather than barring it.
The salon offered a refund and free treatments if I sign something. Should I?
Not before a dermatologist has seen you and you know the extent of the injury. Hair loss and scarring often are not clear for weeks, and a signed release can end a claim that turns out to be far larger than a refund.
My hair fell out weeks after the relaxer. Is that still the salon’s fault?
It can be. Chemical damage to the hair shaft and follicle often shows up as breakage and shedding over the following weeks, and the 2022 dermatology review linked relaxers to hair loss and shaft damage. A dermatologist can distinguish chemical breakage from other causes.
Can I sue the product company instead of the salon?
You can pursue both. The manufacturer and distributor face strict liability if the product was defective or unlawfully formulated, including a keratin product with intentionally added formaldehyde sold after January 1, 2025. The salon faces a negligence claim for how the product was used.
If a salon treatment left you with a chemical burn, scarring or hair loss, call Manoukian Law Firm at (818) 818-5031 or reach us through our contact page. Consultations are free and there is no fee unless we recover for you.
