As I read this article (HT: Fred), I am struck by the fact that Attorney General Ken Paxton must have relied upon significant medical and epidemiological expertise to prepare his complaint.
The question is whether the courts will tackle these matters. They often tend to defer to the federal agencies on technical and scientific questions. That would be the wrong approach in this case. Both Pfizer and the federal agencies mishandled how this vaccine would be offered to the public. That seems to have been intentional because it was so egregious. The courts need to exercise accountability.
The courts can’t fix the damage these vaccines caused. But the proper verdict can at least demonstrate that “the system works”, albeit belatedly.
Good for Paxton. Something to look for in the coming weeks is how many other state AGs join in the suit. Each AG officer will review Paxton’s suit and decide whether it has potential for settlement and large judgment. Pfizer is not about to go to court on this issue because it would lose public support and have to divulge far too much sensitive info on discovery. In its preliminary filings, Pfizer likely will claim that the Emergency Use Authority (EUA) granted by the FDA gave it immunity from suits and that the test data were sufficient to justify the EUA irrespective of the promotional claims that lie at the heart of Paxton’s suit.
From Pfizer’s perspective, a giant settlement in the billions of dollars might be sold internally as nothing more than a pre-wash of funds in that Pfizer has active contracts with the government to supply billions of dollars of vaccines. Thus, a payout to make Paxton and company go away would just be a refund of sorts of Pfizer’s overcharging the government for past, present, and future vaccine orders.
Lastly, look for politics to play a role here, whether covert or overt. Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla is an anti-Trumpster and if you remember, he delayed the announcement that Pfizer had developed an effective COVID-19 vaccine until a week or so after the 2020 election so that Trump would not be given a bump. Thus, far Boula and Pfizer have been protected by the Biden administration but Paxton’s suit could unravel this arrangement. Moreover, the CDC and the DHHS could well be embarrassed if Paxton’s suit shows that they acted improperly or favored Pfizer to the detriment of the public interest.
The first sign of progress, though, will be if other Red State AG’s join the Paxton suit. This also will accelerate Pfizer’s desire for a quick settlement. The company and its Board are well aware of the polls showing Biden losing to Trump in 2024 and this, more than anything else, might take away the shield it has from federal lawsuits along the lines of Paxton’s suit in TX. They may try to limit their liability and exposure by some sort of omnibus settlement deal that is able to have federal participation and closure before Trump can repay Bourla for his 2020 actions.
I hope the issues get aired in court, Fred. A settlement would perhaps prevent that from happening. Will the shield from liability turn out to be what squashes this suit?