In a bold move to hold pharmaceutical giants accountable, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has taken his fight against Pfizer to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit. The appeal, filed on Wednesday, challenges the federal court’s dismissal of a lawsuit that accuses Pfizer of making false and misleading claims about its COVID-19 vaccine. This legal battle is not just about one state; it is a broader challenge to the federal Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act), which has shielded vaccine makers from liability for years, allowing them to operate with impunity.

• Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton appeals a federal court ruling, arguing that state consumer protection laws should supersede the federal PREP Act’s liability shield.
• Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach files a lawsuit alleging Pfizer violated previous consent judgments by making misleading claims about its COVID-19 vaccine.
• Similar lawsuits in Utah and North Carolina challenge the PREP Act’s broad immunity, with some courts ruling that certain claims fall outside the act’s protections.

Texas appeals, challenging Prep Act immunity

Texas sued Pfizer in state court in November 2023, alleging that the company violated the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA) by misleading the public about the efficacy and safety of its COVID-19 vaccine. The state claims that Pfizer capitalized on the public’s fear and uncertainty, touting the vaccine as a “miracle cure” and leading consumers to make choices they would not have otherwise made. This, the state argues, resulted in billions of dollars in profits for Pfizer at the expense of public trust and health.

In January 2024, Pfizer successfully moved the case to federal court, where it was dismissed in December 2024. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Lubbock Division, accepted Pfizer’s argument that the PREP Act’s liability shield protected the company from such claims. However, Texas is now appealing this decision, arguing that the PREP Act’s protections do not extend to consumer protection cases brought by the state.

Texas’ brief to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals asserts that the PREP Act’s liability shield “only extends to claims ‘for loss'” and does not shield against consumer protection cases filed by the state. The state argues that the PREP Act’s immunity shield blocks claims involving the “administration” of a covered product to an individual but does not extend to “sovereign consumer protection suits.” Ray Flores, senior outside counsel for Children’s Health Defense (CHD), supports Texas’ position, stating, “The Texas District Court’s one-page dismissal is a prime example of the outmoded knee-jerk reaction that anything goes under PREP.”

Kansas lawsuit: a stronger case with historical context

Meanwhile, Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach has filed a similar lawsuit in state court, alleging that Pfizer violated the Kansas Consumer Protection Act by making misleading claims about the safety and effectiveness of its COVID-19 vaccine. What sets the Kansas case apart is the inclusion of three previous consent judgments from 2008, 2012, and 2014, in which Pfizer agreed not to make misleading claims about its products. These agreements, Flores argues, form the “centerpiece” of Kansas’ case and provide a stronger legal foundation.

Kobach’s lawsuit alleges that Pfizer used “denial and delay” tactics, confidentiality agreements, and an extended study timeline to conceal significant safety concerns and critical data about the vaccine. The lawsuit states, “Pfizer must be held accountable for falsely representing the benefits of its COVID-19 vaccine while concealing and suppressing the truth about its vaccine’s safety risks, waning effectiveness, and inability to prevent transmission.”

Pfizer has sought to affirm its immunity under the PREP Act and dismiss the Kansas case, but Flores is confident that the state’s arguments will prevail. “Kansas v. Pfizer has an extra added benefit of three consent judgments, where Pfizer promised not to mislead the citizens of Kansas,” Flores said. “Astonishingly, Pfizer claims these three consent judgments entered more than a decade ago are unrelated settlements that did not involve a vaccine subject to the PREP Act. I don’t buy it.”

Other challenges to the Prep Act

The legal challenges to the PREP Act are not limited to Texas and Kansas. In Utah, a clinical trial participant, Brianne Dressen, sued AstraZeneca for breach of contract after the company failed to provide medical treatment for injuries sustained during the trial. In November 2024, a federal court ruled that the PREP Act’s liability shield does not extend to breach-of-contract claims, a decision that could have far-reaching implications for other vaccine-related lawsuits.

In North Carolina, the Supreme Court of North Carolina overturned lower court decisions, ruling that the PREP Act does not preempt state law requiring parental consent for vaccination. This case, filed by the mother of a 14-year-old boy who was vaccinated without consent, will now return to the North Carolina Court of Appeals to address questions of state law and the state Constitution.

The legal battles against Pfizer and the PREP Act are more than just a series of lawsuits; they are a call to action for transparency and accountability in the pharmaceutical industry. As Ray Flores of CHD put it, “The all-consuming reach of the PREP Act’s tentacles is being challenged once again.” The outcomes of these cases could set important precedents, potentially stripping away the immunity shield that has protected vaccine makers from liability for years. The question remains: Will the courts finally hold these corporations accountable, or will the PREP Act continue to shield them from the consequences of their actions?

Sources include:

ChildrensHealthDefense.org

ChildrensHealthDefense.org [PDF]

ChildrensHealthDefense.org [PDF]