Florida AG Sues Pfizer Over COVID Vaccine Safety Claims, State Seeks $10,000 Per Violation and Return of Profits

Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier sued Pfizer Inc. and its chairman and CEO, Albert Bourla, on October 1, 2026. The state claims Pfizer misled Floridians about the safety of its COVID-19 vaccine and about whether the shot stopped the spread of the virus, and that the company then profited heavily from that marketing. Pfizer says its statements about the vaccine were accurate and science-based and that it stands behind the vaccine’s safety and effectiveness.[^1][^2][^3][^4]

Nothing in the complaint has been proven. The court has made no findings, and Pfizer has not yet answered the allegations in court. This article walks through what the complaint says, what the state wants, what Pfizer has said, and what the case means for ordinary Florida residents.

Florida v. Pfizer COVID Vaccine Lawsuit: Quick Facts

Detail	Information
Case caption as filed	Office of the Attorney General, State of Florida, Department of Legal Affairs v. Pfizer Inc. and Albert Bourla (often shortened to Florida v. Pfizer)
E-filing number	Filing No. 258276669
Court	Circuit Court of the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit in and for St. Lucie County, Florida, Civil Division
Filed	October 1, 2026 (e-filed at 11:00 a.m.)
Plaintiff	State of Florida, through Attorney General James Uthmeier and the Department of Legal Affairs
Defendants	Pfizer Inc. (Delaware corporation, principal place of business in New York) and Albert Bourla (chairman and CEO)
Law invoked	Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA), Chapter 501, Part II, Florida Statutes
Counts	Count I: safety representations and omissions. Count II: profiteering
Relief sought	Declaratory relief, a permanent injunction, civil penalties, disgorgement of profits, attorney’s fees and costs
Civil penalties sought	$10,000 per willful violation, and $15,000 per violation that victimized a senior citizen or a person with a disability
Type of case	Government enforcement action under state law, not a class action
Money for individual consumers	None sought in the complaint

Who Is Suing Pfizer and Who Represents Florida

The case is brought in the name of the State of Florida by the Attorney General’s office, which is an enforcing authority under FDUTPA. The complaint cites Section 501.207, Florida Statutes, as the basis for the Attorney General’s standing.[^1]

Florida is represented by the following lawyers, per the complaint’s signature block:[^1]

Office of the Attorney General of Florida	James Otis Law Group, LLC (outside counsel, St. Louis, Missouri)
James Uthmeier, Attorney General	Michael C. Martinich-Sauter
Ryan D. Newman, Chief Deputy Attorney General	Peter T. Reed
Jason Hilborn, Deputy Attorney General, Civil Division
Victoria Ann Butler, Director, Consumer Protection Division
Jennifer Hayes Pinder, Bureau Chief, Tampa, Consumer Protection Division

The complaint notes that the two James Otis lawyers’ admission to appear in Florida (pro hac vice) was still forthcoming when it was filed.[^1]

What Florida Says Pfizer Did Wrong

The complaint is 49 pages and rests on two counts. The state alleges that Pfizer and Bourla ran a marketing campaign in Florida, spending more than $10 billion on advertising from 2020 to 2023, built around two themes: the vaccine had no material safety risks, and mass vaccination was needed to stop transmission.[^1]

Allegations About Safety Claims

The state points to public statements by Bourla and Pfizer that the vaccine was safe, including a January 18, 2023 CNBC interview in which Bourla said Pfizer had seen “not a single [safety] signal.”[^1] The complaint says Pfizer knew of data pointing to several risks it did not tell the public about:

• Myocarditis and pericarditis. The complaint says Pfizer knew its vaccine was connected to heart inflammation, especially in males under 18. It cites U.S. military data, Israeli Ministry of Health reports, and a CDC advisory committee work group notice from June 2021. It notes that the FDA added a myocarditis and pericarditis warning to the vaccine’s fact sheet in late June 2021.[^1]
• Pregnancy. The state says Pfizer had reason to believe the vaccine posed risks to pregnant women and unborn babies in the first trimester, and had no data showing safety in that window. It cites a 2020 rat reproductive study, Pfizer’s own tally of 458 pregnancy reports as of February 28, 2021, and a Pfizer pregnancy trial that enrolled far fewer people than planned and covered only women between 24 and 34 weeks of gestation.[^1]
• Other adverse events. The complaint says Pfizer’s internal database held 158,893 adverse event reports by February 28, 2021, including 1,223 deaths for which Pfizer did not make causality findings, and that it knew of a possible stroke signal in people 65 and older.[^1]

The complaint also quotes January 2021 text messages among then-Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, Anthony Fauci, and Rochelle Walensky about whether a post-dose fever could theoretically be linked to first-trimester miscarriage. The same exchange has Fauci noting that animal toxicity studies “did not raise any red flags.”[^1]

Allegations About Transmission

The state alleges Pfizer told people they had a duty to get vaccinated to protect loved ones, which implied the vaccine stopped transmission, even though the trial protocol did not list transmission as an objective. It cites a Pfizer executive’s 2022 answer of “no” at a European Parliament hearing when asked whether the vaccine was tested for stopping transmission before it reached the market.[^1][^6]

Allegations About Profits and Pricing

Count II is the “profiteering” claim. The complaint alleges that Pfizer turned a research investment of at least $1.5 billion into more than $80 billion in COVID-19 vaccine revenue, and that it then nearly quadrupled the price from about $30 to a range of $110 to $130 per dose in 2023. It says the private-sector price is now $169.84 per dose.[^1][^3] The state also alleges Pfizer pushed social media companies to silence critics and funded presentations suggesting a rival’s vaccine could cause cancer.[^1]

Why Albert Bourla Is a Named Defendant

The complaint names Bourla personally, alleging that he made many of the statements at issue and controlled Pfizer’s marketing. Under FDUTPA, the state argues, an individual can be liable if he took part in the deceptive practices, controlled them, or had authority to control them and knew about them. The complaint also says Bourla received $101,804,242 in total compensation from Pfizer between 2020 and 2023.[^1]

It also centers on Bourla’s remark that people questioning Pfizer’s claims were “criminals.” Reporting on the case notes that, in the 2021 interview the complaint cites, Bourla used the word about people he said were deliberately spreading vaccine misinformation, and distinguished them from people who were merely hesitant.[^1][^7]

What Florida Wants From the Court

The state asks the court to:[^1]

1. Enter judgment against Pfizer and Bourla for violating FDUTPA.
2. Declare that their written and oral representations and omissions violated the law.
3. Issue a permanent injunction barring deceptive and unfair statements to Florida consumers about Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine.
4. Order civil penalties of $10,000 per willful violation, rising to $15,000 per violation involving a senior citizen or a person with a disability.
5. Award attorney’s fees and costs.
6. Grant other equitable relief, including a monetary judgment for disgorgement of profits.

The complaint says the claim exceeds the 50,000minimumforcircuitcourtanddoesnotstateatotaldollarfigure.[1]Becausepenaltiesarecalculatedperviolation,thefinalnumberwoulddependonhowmanyviolationsacourtfindsandcounts.Somecoverageofapossible”80 billion” case does not match the complaint, which cites that figure as Pfizer’s revenue, not as a sum Florida says it is owed.

What Pfizer Says

Pfizer’s public response says it is proud to have developed the vaccine in record time during a pandemic, that its statements about the vaccine were accurate and science-based, and that it stands behind the vaccine’s safety and efficacy. It adds that the vaccine has been given to billions of people and has a favorable safety profile in all age groups.[^4] Other outlets report that Pfizer called the claims without merit and said it would respond to the lawsuit in due course.[^5]

In response to a Reuters request for more comment, the Attorney General’s office said the complaint and Uthmeier’s comments speak for themselves.[^3]

Background: A Different Kind of Case From Earlier Florida Efforts

The suit follows a statewide grand jury that Governor Ron DeSantis asked the Florida Supreme Court to convene to examine alleged wrongdoing around COVID-19 vaccines. In January 2025, that grand jury found no evidence that vaccine manufacturers broke federal or state law when making and distributing the shots.[^5] The new case is civil, not criminal, and it is brought under the state’s consumer protection statute, which has a different standard than a criminal charge.

Florida is not the first state to sue Pfizer over how it described the vaccine. In June 2024, Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach sued under his state’s consumer protection law, alleging misleading statements about the vaccine’s safety, efficacy, effects in pregnancy, and link to myocarditis.[^7]

The complaint also addresses federal law head on. It says Florida brings claims only under state law, expressly disclaims federal claims, and says it is not bringing a “claim for loss” under the federal PREP Act or any claim tied to Pfizer’s Defense Department contract. The complaint also says Pfizer now claims near-complete immunity under that Act in a case involving a teenager’s death.[^1] How those points play out is for the court to decide.

For readers following how drugmakers are held to account in court, see our coverage of Purdue Pharma Sentenced to $5.544 Billion in Criminal Penalties, What Opioid Victims Should Know.

What the Florida v. Pfizer Lawsuit Means for Florida Residents

This is not a class action, and there is nothing to claim.

• There is no claim form and no deadline. The state is the plaintiff. The complaint does not ask for damages on behalf of individual vaccine recipients, and the case is built on the theory that the alleged misrepresentations violated the law whether or not any particular person got the shot.[^1][^6]
• You cannot join the case or sign up for a payment. Be careful of anyone who says otherwise. If money is ever recovered, the complaint does not say how it would be used.
• Your own legal rights are separate. This case does not decide whether any person was harmed by a vaccine. Anyone who believes they were injured should talk to a licensed attorney about their options and any time limits, including the federal and state programs that apply to COVID-19 vaccine injury claims.
• Medical questions belong with your doctor. This article reports a lawsuit. It is not medical advice, and the allegations are not findings of fact.

What Happens Next in Florida v. Pfizer

The case is at its first step. Pfizer and Bourla must respond to the complaint, and defendants in cases like this often file motions to dismiss or raise defenses before any discovery begins. No hearing dates or trial date have been reported. The version of the complaint posted by the Attorney General’s office has a blank space where the case number would go, so the court’s assigned number may differ from the e-filing number above.[^1][^2]

We will update this article as the docket develops.

Key Dates in the Florida v. Pfizer COVID Vaccine Case

Event	Date
Pfizer’s vaccine reaches the market for ages 16 and older, per the complaint	December 11, 2020
FDA adds myocarditis and pericarditis warning to the fact sheet, per the complaint	Late June 2021
Bourla CNBC interview: “not a single [safety] signal”	January 18, 2023
Kansas AG sues Pfizer over vaccine claims	June 2024
Florida statewide grand jury finds no evidence manufacturers broke the law	January 2025
Florida files complaint against Pfizer and Bourla	October 1, 2026
Pfizer’s response in court	Not yet reported

Florida v. Pfizer COVID Vaccine Lawsuit FAQ

Is Florida v. Pfizer a class action?

No. It is a civil enforcement action by the State of Florida under FDUTPA. The complaint does not seek damages for individual consumers.[^1][^6]

Can I get money from the Florida lawsuit against Pfizer?

Not through this case as filed. The relief sought is an injunction, civil penalties paid to the state, attorney’s fees, and disgorgement of profits. The complaint does not describe a fund for individuals.[^1]

Why is Albert Bourla being sued personally?

The state alleges he personally made many of the challenged statements and controlled Pfizer’s marketing. It relies on FDUTPA’s rules on individual liability for people who took part in, controlled, or had authority over deceptive practices.[^1]

What is FDUTPA?

The Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act makes unfair methods of competition, unconscionable acts, and unfair or deceptive acts in trade or commerce unlawful. The Attorney General can sue to stop violations and seek penalties and other relief.[^1]

How much could Pfizer have to pay?

The complaint gives no total. It seeks $10,000 per willful violation and $15,000 per violation involving a senior or a person with a disability, and the court would decide how many violations occurred, if any.[^1]

Has Pfizer admitted anything?

No. Pfizer denies the allegations and says its representations were accurate and science-based.[^3][^4]

Did the court rule that the vaccine is unsafe?

No. The court has made no findings. The complaint’s allegations are the state’s claims, and Pfizer disputes them.

Is the vaccine still available?

The complaint says Pfizer’s current vaccine is FDA-approved for people 65 and older and for people 5 through 64 with at least one underlying condition that puts them at high risk of severe COVID-19, and that it is no longer authorized for children 6 months through 4 years. Check with your doctor or the FDA for current eligibility.[^1]

Sources

[^1]: Complaint, Office of the Attorney General, State of Florida, Department of Legal Affairs v. Pfizer Inc. and Albert Bourla, Filing No. 258276669, Circuit Court of the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St. Lucie County, e-filed October 1, 2026, https://www.myfloridalegal.com/sites/default/files/oag-v.-pfizer_filed-complaint.pdf [^2]: Florida Office of the Attorney General, “Attorney General James Uthmeier Files Lawsuit Against Pfizer and its CEO Dr. Albert Bourla,” October 1, 2026, https://www.myfloridalegal.com/newsrelease/attorney-general-james-uthmeier-files-lawsuit-against-pfizer-and-its-ceo-dr-albert [^3]: Reuters, “Florida sues Pfizer, CEO over COVID vaccine claims,” October 1, 2026, as republished at https://whbl.com/?p=1012819 [^4]: 10 Tampa Bay (WTSP), “Florida Attorney General sues Pfizer over COVID vaccine claims,” https://www.wtsp.com/article/news/health/florida-attorney-general-sues-pfizer-covid-vaccine-claims/67-ac012731-1da8-4414-860e-1f1ed20b4ab6 [^5]: Michael Moline, Florida Phoenix / States Newsroom, “Uthmeier alleges Pfizer misled Florida about its COVID vaccine’s safety,” October 1, 2026, https://www.newsfromthestates.com/node/430290 [^6]: Legal Newsline, “Florida attorney general sues Pfizer, CEO for misleading COVID vaccine info,” https://www.brushwoodmedianetwork.com/florida/news-florida/florida-attorney-general-sues-pfizer-ceo-for-misleading-covid-vaccine-info/ [^7]: International Business Times UK, “Florida Sues Pfizer Over Claims It Hid Myocarditis and Miscarriage Risks as COVID Vaccine Sales Hit $80B,” https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/florida-sues-pfizer-over-covid-vaccine-marketing-1823325

Researched and written by Israr Ahmad, legal content researcher and founder of AllAboutLawyer.com. Facts in this article were checked against the filed complaint, the Florida Attorney General’s press release, and news reports as of October 6, 2026. I am not an attorney, and this article is general information, not legal advice or medical advice. The allegations described are the state’s claims and have not been proven in court. If you have questions about your own rights, consider speaking with a licensed attorney, and talk to your doctor about any medical decision.

Last Updated: October 6, 2026