Florida AG Sues Pfizer and CEO, Alleging COVID Shot Safety Risks Were Concealed

Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier filed suit against Pfizer, Inc. and its chief executive, Albert Bourla on Oct. 1, 2026. The complaint alleges the defendants violated the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA).^{1 2}

The 49-page complaint filed in the Circuit Court of the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit in St. Lucie County describes a marketing program Pfizer ran from 2020 through 2023, spending roughly $10 billion on promotion while collecting more than $80 billion in COVID-19 shot sales. During that period, the company told consumers the vaccine carried no material safety risks while the pharmaceutical giant allegedly already possessed data it did not publicly disclose linking the shot to serious adverse outcomes.^{3 4}

The state seeks a permanent injunction, disgorgement of profits, and civil fines of up to $10,000 per unlawful act, with that figure rising to $15,000 when the affected consumer was elderly or had a disability.⁵

Pfizer Allegedly Committed Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices

The Complaint makes it clear that that Pfizer relied on lies, manipulation and silencing any questions about its safety to sell their novel shot and generate a windfall during the pandemic.⁶

The Complaint relies on the FDUTPA, Florida’s consumer protection statute, which prohibits unfair or deceptive acts in trade or commerce. This cause of action is based on state law only, does not invoke any federal law and was brought in the interest of the public.

The FDUPTA is meant to be construed liberally in order to protect the public and an individual defendant may be liable for practices that violate the act.⁷

Unlike other drug companies, Pfizer chose not to accept federal funding when it began to develop the COVID 19 shot utilizing mRNA technology and instead invested 1.5 billion of its own money. In fact, Pfizer produced millions of shots before it had acquired any reported safety or efficacy findings.⁸

The drug company spent over 10 billion dollars on marketing its controversial shot with 25 million spent on lobbying efforts alone. They went as far as creating Avenger themed comic books that suggested the shot prevented transmission of COVID, which was not true, by targeting impressionable and vulnerable children.⁹

Bourla Called COVID Shot Skeptics “Criminals”

In November 2021, Bourla referring to those who questioned the safety of the novel COVID shot said:

Those people are criminals. They’re not bad people. They’re criminals because they have literally cost millions of lives.¹⁰

This type of manipulation was addressed in the Complaint which stated:

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.¹¹

Pfizer Lies That the Vaccine Had “No Material Safety Risks”

At the World Economic Forum, Bourla said that the pharmaceutical giant had seen “not a single safety signal, although we have distributed billions of doses.”¹²

The truth is that at the time those statements were made, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) vaccine safety advisory committee had already found a likely link between mRNA COVID vaccines and myocarditis and pericarditis in young males. CDC data showed that most cases arose within two days of the second dose, and that more than three-quarters of all cases recorded in the first eight months of the national vaccination program involved people 30 or younger.¹³

In 2021, the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) analyzed health system data to find that the vaccinated had a rate ratio of myocarditis and pericarditis 2.6 and 2.0 times higher respectively than the unvaccinated. A warning was added to the mRNA COVID shot fact sheet only after 1,200 reports of heart inflammation were received.¹⁴

The Florida Attorney General called out this lie…

What they didn’t say that they knew about was myocarditis in teenagers and young adults. They had reason to know the shot posed risks to pregnant women and unborn babies in the first trimester.¹⁵

As early as 2021, Pfizer was well aware of other health risks its novel shot using mRNA technology presented, including stroke and deaths in elderly populations. Safety data they collected still has not been released to the public. Within 10 weeks of its COVID biological being released by the U,S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) under an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA), 158,893 adverse events had already been reported to Pfizer’s safety data base and 1,223 fatalities were reported.¹⁶

Despite these findings, Pfizer continued to market its mRNA shot as safe and effective.

Shot Was Not Tested for Transmission

Pfizer promoted its vaccine as a public health obligation and attempted to instill irrational fear in the public based on false information. Bourla told the public that choosing not to vaccinate “will not affect only your health or your life. Unfortunately, it will affect the lives of others and likely the lives of the people you love the most.” The Complaint states that Pfizer made those statements even though its pre-EUA clinical trials did not demonstrate that the shot prevented people from spreading the virus to others.¹⁷

In October 2022, Janine Small, Pfizer’s president of international developed markets, testified before the European Parliament’s special committee on COVID. Dutch MEP Rob Roos asked her directly whether Pfizer had tested the vaccine’s ability to prevent transmission before it entered the market.

Small replied:

No. Science had to move quickly to really understand what was happening in the market.¹⁸

The FDA did not require COVID vaccine manufacturers to demonstrate prevention of infection with and transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, only to demonstrate 50 percent efficacy in lessening severe symptoms of COVID disease that could lead to hospitalization or death.¹⁹

Pfizer Generated Over $80 Billion in COVID-19 Vaccine Revenue

More than 6.7 million doses of the vaccine were distributed across Florida between the initial FDA approval of Pfizer’s mRNA COVID biological under an EUA in December 2020 and distribution by September 2026.²⁰ Pfizer raised the commercial price of the vaccine from approximately $30 per dose under U.S. government supply contracts to between $110 and $130 per dose after the product moved to a commercial market in 2023.^{21 22}

According to the Complaint, Bourla received nearly $102 million in total compensation during the years 2020 through 2023.²³

Pfizer Calls the Allegations Without Merit

Pfizer issued a written statement in response to the lawsuit…

We are proud to have developed the COVID-19 vaccine in record time in the midst of a global pandemic and saved countless lives. The representations made by Pfizer about its COVID-19 vaccine have been accurate and science-based, and the Company stands behind the safety and efficacy of its vaccine. Pfizer believes that the state’s allegations have no merit and will respond to the suit in due course.²⁴

The complaint states:

Pfizer’s conduct misled Florida consumers when they were making some of the most sensitive health decisions of their lives. Ultimately, Pfizer’s misconduct rests on the paternalistic assumption that Florida consumers could not be trusted with the truth about Pfizer’s products. That offensive assumption is anathema to the principles underlying the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.²⁵

Attorney General Uthmeier promised:

They assumed Florida families could not be trusted with the truth. My office will hold them accountable.²⁶

If you would like to receive an e-mail notice of the most recent articles published in The Vaccine Reaction each week, click here.