By yourNEWS Media Newsroom
Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier filed a state lawsuit Thursday against Pfizer and CEO Albert Bourla, accusing the pharmaceutical company of violating Florida consumer-protection law through allegedly deceptive marketing of its COVID-19 vaccine.
The case, filed in the Circuit Court for Florida’s 19th Judicial Circuit, alleges Pfizer promoted its vaccine as presenting no material safety concerns while withholding information about adverse events, including myocarditis and pericarditis, and concerns involving pregnancy. Reuters reported that Florida is seeking an injunction, disgorgement of profits and civil penalties of $10,000 for each alleged violation, rising to $15,000 when a senior or disabled consumer was harmed. Pfizer said the allegations are without merit and that its vaccine statements were accurate, science-based and supported by safety and effectiveness data.
Uthmeier connected the lawsuit to a separate Florida investigation involving former federal health official Anthony Fauci and the government’s handling of COVID-19 vaccines. “Weeks ago we learned Fauci and the biomedical state knew the COVID jabs were dangerous but hid it from us,” Uthmeier wrote on X. “While that investigation continues, today we sued Pfizer for deceptively marketing the products as safe—making billions—while pregnant women were miscarrying their babies and teenagers were having heart attacks.”
Those statements are Uthmeier’s allegations and should not be read as findings that COVID-19 vaccination caused miscarriages or heart attacks. The FDA has recognized a rare risk of myocarditis and pericarditis following mRNA COVID-19 vaccination, particularly among males ages 12 through 24, and strengthened vaccine labeling in 2025. Myocarditis is inflammation of the heart muscle and is medically distinct from a heart attack. FDA estimated approximately 27 cases of myocarditis or pericarditis per million doses among males ages 12 to 24 during the seven days after receipt of 2023-24 mRNA vaccines.
Evidence on pregnancy also does not establish that COVID-19 vaccination increases miscarriage risk. A systematic review and meta-analysis encompassing 21 studies and nearly 150,000 women found no statistically significant increase in miscarriage among vaccinated women compared with women receiving placebo or no vaccination. Separate registry research likewise found no evidence of increased first-trimester pregnancy loss following vaccination.
The Florida complaint, however, argues that the legal question extends beyond whether vaccination caused particular adverse events. Florida alleges Pfizer’s marketing failed to adequately disclose emerging safety information while making broad public statements about the product’s safety, and that the company promoted vaccination as necessary to protect other people even though its original clinical trial was not designed to measure whether vaccination prevented person-to-person transmission.
Bloomberg Law reported that the 49-page lawsuit accuses Pfizer and Bourla of knowingly marketing the vaccine while allegedly concealing risks involving pregnant women, myocarditis and other adverse events.
The complaint states:
“Pfizer’s campaign focused on two principal themes. First, Pfizer assured Florida consumers that its vaccine posed no material safety risks. For example, in one nationally televised interview, Bourla asserted that the company had not seen ‘a single [safety] signal’ associated with the vaccine. This emphasis on the purported safety of the vaccine directly responded to widespread public concerns about a pharmaceutical product that had been developed on an unusually accelerated timeline, with uniquely limited testing and oversight, and employing novel mRNA technology.
“Second, Pfizer claimed that mass vaccination was necessary to stop the transmission of COVID-19. In fact, Defendants insisted that Floridians had a moral duty to take the vaccine to prevent transmission of COVID-19 to those ‘they love the most,’ whom ‘they are putting at risk’ if consumers were to remain unvaccinated. During this pressure campaign, Defendants communicated to consumers that the company’s vaccine prevented the transmission of COVID-19. As Defendants later acknowledged, this emphasis on transmission ‘work[ed]’ and played a strong role in driving consumer demand.
“Pfizer was not content merely to promote its own narrative. It also sought to quash any dissent that might impact consumer demand—like calling those who dared to question Pfizer’s public claims ‘criminals.’
“Pfizer’s marketing campaign worked: the company brought in more than $80 billion from COVID-19 vaccine sales alone. And the Pfizer executives who spearheaded this campaign profited personally too. Bourla, for instance, received nearly $102 million in compensation from 2020 to 2023. This figure does not include his profits derived from sales of Pfizer stock, whose price was driven up by Pfizer’s public marketing campaign, or profits from his self-laudatory 2022 book Moonshot: Inside Pfizer’s Nine-Month Race to Make the Impossible Possible.”
Florida alleges Pfizer ultimately generated more than $80 billion from COVID-19 vaccine sales and nearly quadrupled the vaccine’s price, from roughly $30 per dose to between $110 and $130 in 2023. The complaint also alleges Bourla personally received approximately $102 million in compensation from 2020 through 2023.
Pfizer disputes Florida’s characterization of its conduct. In its response reported Thursday, the company said its COVID-19 vaccine communications were accurate and supported by scientific evidence and said it “stands behind” the vaccine’s safety and effectiveness.
The litigation resembles a 2024 case brought by Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach, who accused Pfizer of deceptive statements involving vaccine safety, pregnancy, myocarditis, waning effectiveness and transmission. That complaint alleged Pfizer’s representations helped produce approximately $75 billion in vaccine revenue over two years. Pfizer also denied the Kansas allegations.
Uthmeier also released an announcement video outlining Florida’s allegations.
The lawsuit does not establish that Pfizer or Bourla violated Florida law, concealed vaccine risks or caused the medical outcomes cited by Uthmeier. Those allegations will now be tested through litigation, with Florida seeking financial penalties, recovery of allegedly improper profits and a court order prohibiting conduct it contends violated the state’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.
Original article
Comments