The Clear Eyes Recall Got 60 Times Bigger: 2,356,248 Bottles of Redness Relief in 17 Lots, Recalled September 15, 2026 — 25 Days After Prestige Said No Other Eye Drops Were Involved. Refund at the Store, No Lawsuit Found.

As of October 11, 2026, the FDA enforcement database lists two open Clear Eyes recalls. The new one is for Clear Eyes Redness Relief, the glycerin-and-naphazoline drop for red, irritated eyes. The older one, from July, is for Clear Eyes Maximum Itchy Eye Relief, lot 2552A only. Check the lot code printed on the box and the bottle and compare it with the table below. If it is not on the list, the bottle is not part of either recall.

Note the gaps: lot RL25N03 is not on the list, and neither is any lot outside these five months. The hang-tag lot “RL2H02” is very likely RL25H02 with a dropped digit, but that is our reading, not the FDA’s; if your hang-tag bottle says RL25H02 with an August 2027 date, treat it as recalled. Both products are sold under the Medtech Products Inc. distributor name on the label. According to MedShadow’s review of the enforcement report, the Redness Relief label names Canada as the place of manufacture.

Nothing in the FDA records describes a withdrawal of the Clear Eyes brand. Both entries are lot recalls: the company found it could not demonstrate that particular batches were sterile, and pulled those batches. “Lack of assurance of sterility” is a finding about the manufacturing record, not a lab result showing germs in the bottle. When the July recall was reported, a Prestige spokesperson told NBC News that “the affected product was not confirmed to be contaminated” and that no injuries had been reported. Neither the FDA record nor the CVS notice says anything about contamination test results or reported injuries for the Redness Relief lots.

That July statement is also why this second recall matters. On August 21, NBC quoted the same spokesperson saying “no other other eye drops were included in the recall.” That was accurate for the 2552A recall itself. But the company opened the Redness Relief recall on September 15, 25 days later, and it is sixty times the size of the July one by bottle count (our arithmetic: 2,356,248 divided by 39,060). The two recalls have different recalling entities within Prestige, different products and different lot-code formats. TheHealthy, reporting the CVS notice, wrote that “it’s not immediately clear if the two sterility-focused recalls are connected in any way.” As of October 11, 2026, we have not found any public statement linking them or giving a cause.

Class II is the FDA’s middle tier: products that “may cause temporary or medically reversible adverse health consequences” or where serious harm is unlikely. It is not Class I, the tier reserved for a reasonable probability of serious injury or death. Are Clear Eyes safe to use? We can’t give a medical answer. What the records show is that only the lots listed above are recalled. A recalled lot should not go in your eyes. Anyone who used one and then has eye pain, discharge or vision changes should see a doctor and keep the bottle.

There is no claim form, no settlement and no fund. The remedy is a refund. According to the CVS recall notice of September 17, 2026, as reported by TheHealthy, customers “should stop using them immediately” and are “instructed to request a refund by bringing a receipt to the CVS store of purchase.” Questions go to Prestige at returns@prestigebrands.com or (914) 527-6897, Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. ET. The FDA record shows the Redness Relief recall was distributed nationwide, with the first notice sent by letter, so other pharmacies and grocers may also have carried the recalled lots. If you bought it elsewhere, ask that store or contact Prestige at the same address. Note that NBC corrected its August report to say that the earlier Itchy Eye Relief lot 2552A “wasn’t sold by CVS”. The CVS notice covers the Redness Relief lots.

Before you return the bottle, take a photo of the lot code and expiration date. If you later have an eye problem, that photo is the only link between you and the recall. Throwing the bottle away might cost you the proof.

Is the recall real or a scam? The recall itself is in the FDA’s public database under D-0870-2026 and D-0871-2026. A legitimate refund comes from the store or from Prestige. It never involves paying a fee, a gift card or giving out bank details. Messages promising “Clear Eyes settlement” payments are not tied to any case we can find.

Clear Eyes is not the only eye-drop recall this fall. On August 20, 2026, Sterling Pharmaceutical Services of Dupo, Illinois, a contract manufacturer, began nine Class II recalls of lubricant eye drops and ointments it made for other brands. They also appear in the FDA database with a report date of September 30. The largest are two Walgreens Lubricant Eye Drops entries, 301,114 single bottles and 199,600 twin packs. The others are sold under the AvKare, Cameron Pharmaceuticals, Reliable-1 Laboratories, Major LubriFresh and TRP Gentle Eyes names. MedShadow reports that AvKare told customers the FDA requested the recall after inspecting Sterling’s plant, which had received an FDA warning letter in September 2022. MedShadow also states that the Clear Eyes Redness Relief recall was not initiated by Sterling. The two are separate recalls that happened to land in the same weekly report. If your bottle is a store brand rather than Clear Eyes, search the FDA enforcement database by brand name. This page does not cover those lots.

On October 11, 2026, we searched the CourtListener RECAP archive for “Clear Eyes” together with Prestige, Medtech or Insight. Of the 34 results, the newest was filed in April 2026, and none concerns either recall. RECAP is a strong check for federal dockets but covers state courts poorly. We also found no news report of a class action. That matches what we found on September 3 for the smaller recall. What changes with this recall is scale. Two million bottles of a mainstream drugstore product make an economic-loss class action (“I paid for a sterile product”) more likely than a single lot of 39,060 did. But such cases face an obvious answer when a refund is already on offer, and nothing has been filed.

A personal-injury claim is a different matter, with different requirements. It needs a diagnosed eye injury or infection, documented use of a recalled lot before it started and, ideally, the bottle itself. Without that chain there is no case. With it, a lawyer can assess one. For everyone else, the refund is the whole remedy. We will update this page if the FDA reclassifies or closes either recall, or if a case is filed.