FORT PIERCE, Florida (PNN) - October 3, 2026 - More than five years after the COVID “vaccine” rollout (Ed. Note: It was not a vaccine, either legally or medically), some states, thankfully, are still unwilling to close the books on what happened during the nonexistent pandemic.
Florida is opening another front. On Thursday, Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier sued Pfizer and its chairman and CEO, Albert Bourla, accusing them of deceiving Floridians about the safety of the company’s COVID “vaccine,” overstating its ability to stop transmission, suppressing criticism, and using those practices to build a hugely profitable market.
The 49-page Complaint was filed in the Circuit Court for St. Lucie County. It brings two counts under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, or FDUTPA. The first targets Pfizer’s safety representations and omissions. The second accuses Pfizer and Bourla of unfair business practices and profiteering.
Florida is not suing for individual vaccine injuries or bringing federal claims. Instead, it argues that Pfizer violated state consumer-protection law by withholding material information while aggressively marketing its product.
Reuters reported that Pfizer says the case has no merit, which of course is to be expected by pharmaceutical executives seeking profit over truth and safety.
The state alleges that Pfizer repeatedly assured consumers its “vaccine” posed no meaningful safety concerns while possessing information that complicated those assurances.
One central example involves myocarditis and pericarditis.
By June 2021, the FDA had added warnings about those conditions to fact sheets for the Pfizer and Moderna “vaccines”. The complaint also cites military data, Israeli reports, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) findings, and Pfizer’s own documents concerning the risk, particularly among adolescent boys and young men.
Yet in January 2023, Bourla told CNBC that Pfizer had reviewed the data and had seen “not a single [safety] signal.”
Florida argues that statement was deceptive because evidence of the myocarditis risk was already well known.
Pfizer today acknowledges an increased risk of myocarditis and pericarditis after mRNA vaccination, particularly among adolescent males. The dispute, then, is not simply whether the risk exists. It is whether Pfizer accurately described what it knew, and when it knew it.
Florida also focuses heavily on pregnancy. The lawsuit points to Pfizer’s unannounced rat studies, which showed severe fertility and pregnancy complications.
By February 28, 2021, Pfizer also had reports involving 458 pregnant women exposed to the “vaccine”. Uthmeier quotes the findings: more than half the pregnant women (248 cases, or 54%) reported an adverse event from Pfizer’s COVID-19 “vaccine”.
More than 1-in-10 women (52) who received Pfizer’s COVID-19 “vaccine” during their pregnancy reported a miscarriage, many within days of vaccination.
Additionally, six women who received Pfizer’s COVID-19 “vaccine” during their pregnancy reported premature deliveries; and several babies died. These reports were later joined by “tens of thousands” of adverse events involving women’s reproductive systems.
Florida also points to Pfizer’s clinical study of pregnant women. Pfizer announced it in February 2021 to evaluate the vaccine’s “safety, tolerability and immunogenicity.” Uthmeier says Pfizer enrolled only a fraction of the planned participants and ended the study early. It also limited enrollment to women vaccinated between 24 and 34 weeks of pregnancy.
The second major dispute is equally straightforward. Pfizer executives repeatedly encouraged vaccination as a way to protect others.
In December 2020, Bourla said, “I repeat once more that this choice 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, who are the people (with whom you are) usually in contact.”
Similar statements followed; but Florida points to a basic problem. Pfizer’s original clinical trial did not test whether vaccination prevented person-to-person transmission.
The FDA said in December 2020 that there was no evidence at that point that the “vaccine” prevented transmission. A Pfizer executive later confirmed publicly that the company had not tested the “vaccine” for stopping transmission before its introduction.
Florida argues that Pfizer nevertheless used protection of others as a powerful sales message.
The lawsuit goes beyond questions of safety and efficacy. The state also attacks Pfizer’s broader competitive conduct.
Pfizer rejects Florida’s account. It said after the lawsuit was filed that Florida appears to have structured the case to avoid the broad liability protections Pfizer has invoked in COVID vaccine litigation under the federal Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act. The complaint expressly states that Florida is not bringing a federal claim or a “claim for loss” covered by that law. Instead, Uthmeier is pursuing Pfizer under state consumer-protection laws.
Uthmeier also highlights what that liability shield means in practice. The complaint cites the case of a 14-year-old girl who died from acute cardiac failure caused by myocarditis after receiving Pfizer’s jab. It notes that Pfizer invoked the PREP Act in that litigation and says the company now claims, “near complete immunity from liability for her death”.
No court has yet ruled on Florida’s allegations.
This lawsuit ensures that questions many officials, corporations and media treated as settled during the nonexistent pandemic will now be argued in court.
This time, Florida is trying to make Pfizer answer them without letting the PREP Act end the case at the courthouse door.