Published
June 7, 2026
If you bought Systane eye drops believing they were preservative-free, here is what the false-labeling complaint claims about the boric acid inside — and why there is nothing to file yet.
Allegations Only · No Settlement Yet
This article describes a class action complaint. The statements below are unproven allegations. Alcon Laboratories, Inc. has not been found liable, there is no certified class, and nothing to claim at this time. This page is informational and is not legal advice.
What Is This About?
Alcon Laboratories, Inc. — the eye-care company behind the Systane line of lubricant eye drops — is facing a proposed class action lawsuit alleging that certain Systane products are deceptively marketed as "preservative-free" even though they allegedly contain boric acid, a compound the complaint describes as a preservative.The case is captioned Dotson v. Alcon Laboratories, Inc., Case No. 2:26-cv-04898, and is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. According to the complaint, the original case was filed on April 1, 2026. The named plaintiff is described as a California resident who reportedly bought Systane eye drops through Amazon.com in September 2025, relying on the product's preservative-free representation. Alcon has not been found liable, and the claims remain unproven.
Status
Complaint Filed
Proposed class action · Dotson v. Alcon Laboratories, Inc.
Allegation
"Preservative-free" label despite boric acid
Suit claims boric acid is a preservative that inhibits bacterial growth and extends shelf life
Can I Claim?
No — nothing to claim yet
No settlement, no fund, no claim form at this stage
What the Lawsuit Alleges
At the center of the case is boric acid. The complaint contends that boric acid is a synthetic compound commonly used to inhibit the growth of bacteria and extend a product's shelf life — in other words, a function the lawsuit says is the very definition of a preservative. Because Systane's labeling reportedly highlights a "preservative-free" formulation, the suit argues that the presence of boric acid makes that claim misleading to ordinary consumers.According to the complaint, the "preservative-free" messaging mattered because it allegedly increased consumer demand "based on the perceived features or benefits" of the product, which in turn allowed Alcon to charge a price premium over comparable eye drops. Shoppers who want a genuinely preservative-free formula — often people with sensitive eyes or those who use drops frequently throughout the day — may pay more for that promise, the suit reportedly alleges.
The complaint appears to bring claims under California's consumer protection statutes, which commonly include:
• The Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA)
• The False Advertising Law (FAL)
• The Unfair Competition Law (UCL)
These are the laws routinely invoked in California "false labeling" cases, which allege that a front-of-package claim creates a false impression about what a product is or contains. As with any complaint, these are allegations only; a court has not ruled on whether Alcon's labeling violated any law.
Is There a Systane Settlement Yet?
No. This is important: Dotson v. Alcon Laboratories, Inc. is a newly filed lawsuit, not a settlement.That means:
• There is no settlement fund.
• There is no claim form.
• There is no payout, and no deadline to act.
• Consumers do not need to do anything at this stage.
The filing of a complaint is the very beginning of a case, not the end. Alcon has not been found liable simply because a lawsuit was filed, and the case remains pending unless and until a newer docket entry says otherwise. If the case is ever resolved through a settlement, or a class is certified, a formal claims process with its own eligibility rules and deadlines would be announced separately.
Who Could Be Affected?
The complaint reportedly seeks to represent a nationwide class of people who purchased Systane products labeled preservative-free within roughly four years before the case was filed, through the date of class certification. Because no class has been certified yet, the exact class definition and covered time period are not final and could change.People most likely to care about a "preservative-free" claim include:
• Dry-eye sufferers who use lubricating drops multiple times a day
• Contact lens wearers who avoid preservatives that can build up on lenses
• People with sensitive eyes or preservative sensitivities
• Post-surgical patients advised to use preservative-free drops
• Anyone who specifically chose Systane because of the preservative-free label
If you bought Systane eye drops believing they were preservative-free, it may be worth holding on to your receipts or order confirmation emails in case a class is later certified and a claims process opens. There is nothing to file right now.
Why "Preservative-Free" Labeling Lawsuits Matter
Front-of-package claims like "preservative-free," "all natural," and "no additives" carry real weight with shoppers, who often rely on them to choose between similar products — and to justify paying more. That is exactly why these claims draw scrutiny in consumer protection litigation.In the eye-care category, the preservative question is more than marketing. Some traditional eye-drop preservatives can irritate the eyes with heavy, repeated use, which is why "preservative-free" formulations are often sold at a premium and recommended for frequent users. A lawsuit testing whether a specific ingredient counts as a preservative goes directly to whether that premium promise is accurate. Whether the allegations hold up is a question for the court, but the case is a useful reminder for shoppers to read the full ingredient list rather than relying on a single front-label claim.
What Happens Next?
From here, the case will move through the normal early stages of federal litigation. Alcon may file a response to the complaint or a motion to dismiss, the parties may exchange information in discovery, and the plaintiff would, at some point, ask the court to certify a class. Any of these steps can take months, and the case could also be amended, narrowed, or resolved along the way.OpenClassActions.com will continue watching the docket for any major updates, including a motion to dismiss, settlement talks, class certification activity, or any future claim form.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is there a Systane settlement yet?
No. The case is a proposed class action lawsuit. There is no settlement, no fund, and no claim form. Alcon has not been found liable just because a lawsuit was filed.What does the lawsuit allege?
According to the complaint, Alcon labels certain Systane eye drops as preservative-free even though they allegedly contain boric acid, which the suit describes as a preservative that inhibits bacterial growth and extends shelf life. The allegations are unproven.Do I need to file a claim?
No. Because this is a lawsuit and not a settlement, there is nothing to claim and no deadline. If a settlement or certified class ever produces a claims process, deadlines and eligibility would be announced then.Sources
• U.S. District Court for the Central District of California — docket for Dotson v. Alcon Laboratories, Inc., Case No. 2:26-cv-04898, via Justia: Justia Dockets• Alcon — official Systane product information: Systane.myalcon.com
Free settlement alerts
Get notified when new class actions open to claims
Join thousands of readers who get the latest class action settlements you may qualify for — delivered straight to your inbox.
For more class actions keep scrolling below.
Status
Complaint Filed — Proposed Class Action
Case Title
Dotson v. Alcon Laboratories, Inc.
Case Number
2:26-cv-04898
Court
U.S. District Court, Central District of California
Date Filed
April 1, 2026
Official Court Page
Justia Docket
