Olaplex products cause hair loss, lawsuit claims

Popular haircare company, Olaplex, is being sued by 28 women who claim its products caused hair loss, blisters, and other conditions.

The Olaplex range includes shampoos, conditioners and treatments that claim to safely "repair broken bonds and rejuvenate hair".

But the lawsuit says Olaplex uses harmful chemicals that left the women's hair and scalps in a worse condition.

Olaplex has released test results that it says show the products are safe.

"We are prepared to vigorously defend our company, our brand, and our products against these baseless accusations," it said in a statement on Instagram, BBC reports.

Olaplex has not recalled any of its products in the wake of the lawsuit.

Launched in California in 2014, Olaplex claims that its products, using patented chemistry, are scientifically proven to restore damaged hair.

It is particularly marketed towards people who bleach their hair, and while it is widely available to the public, several products are only sold to trained hair professionals. In many salons around the world it is offered - at an additional price - as a treatment for those getting their hair coloured.

The company has enjoyed massive success and has been endorsed by celebrities including Kim Kardashian and Drew Barrymore.

The lawsuit, filed last week in a Californian district court, claims the plaintiffs "have lost their hair - in some cases more than half and leaving bald spots in others".

It adds their hair was left "dry, brittle, frizzy and dull".

"The hair has split and broken, causing it to look unkept and as if it were cut with a weedwhacker," the suit says.

Several photos of plaintiffs showing bald spots that they claim were caused by Olaplex have been released by the Law Centre of Amy E. Davis, one of the legal firms involved in the suit.

Some of the women have experienced extreme itchiness, rashes, yeast infections, bacterial infections, burning, open sores - and as a result, depression - according to the legal documents.

The plaintiffs are collectively seeking $75,000 (£62,200) in damages.