Six years on from the COVID-19 jab rollout, the courtroom is finally becoming the venue where vaccine injuries and COVID crimes are being heard. Germany, The Netherlands, South Africa, USA (Florida), and India are now in the legal limelight.
By the end of February 2021, Pfizer’s own database already had 158,893 adverts events from just over 42,000 case reports with 1233 reported fatalities. How can the mainstream media continue to remain silent in the face of these international representations which clearly cannot survive legal and evidentiary scrutiny? How long will it be before the cracks in the mainstream narrative begin to appear, and it is openly admitted that COVID-19 injection injuries are not ‘rare’ and that the jabs were not ‘safe’?
Read on for an overview of key legal cases unfolding around the world…
Germany 🇩🇪
August 2026 – In Germany, Düsseldorf lawyer Tobias Ulbrich – the man who beat Volkswagen in the diesel scandal and secured over €830 million for 260,000 defrauded customers – has litigated against Pfizer/BioNTech. He has filed 200 criminal complaints (Strafanzeigen) against three target groups:
📍BioNTech (Mainz) – under §95 of the German Medicines Act (AMG), which criminalizes placing “questionable medicinal products” (bedenkliche Arzneimittel) on the market, with sentences of 1–10 years imprisonment when a large population was exposed and high profits realized.
📍The Marburg plant for the production of specific lethal batches.
📍The Paul-Ehrlich-Institute (PEI) – Germany’s vaccine regulator, for alleged failure to act on safety signals.
Ulbrich singled out the three most injury-heavy batches, EX8679, FD7958, FE6975. The first of the three batches listed was administered to his client Katharina König who has since suffered kidney failure, liver and stomach issues, ME/CFS and a heart attack.
The three highlighted batches alone generated 28,000 adverse event reports to the Paul-Ehrlich Institute – and Ulbrich argues that with an 85–99% underreporting rate per the scientific literature, the true injury count is far higher.
Next steps: Appeal to the Higher Regional Court in Koblenz
Ulbrich recently released a detailed statement explaining that complainants have applied to the Higher Regional Court in Oberlandesgericht Koblenz to challenge the prosecutors’ refusal to investigate the BioNTech allegations. They are seeking a judicial order requiring investigations to begin.
Read more about the German Case: (Video in German with English transcript below)
https://punkt-preradovic.com/200-strafanzeigen-gegen-biontec-und-pei-mit-katharina-koenig-u-tobias-ulbrich/
The Netherlands 🇳🇱
October 2026 – In the Netherlands, the Leeuwarden District Court heard the substantive arguments in a case where seven claimants (two since deceased) are suing Bill Gates, Albert Bourla, and others for injuries they say were caused by the injections. One lawyer, Peter Stassen, faced nine defense counsel. Four experts who took no fee, testified on the themes of military countermeasures frameworks, lipid nanoparticle accumulation, and safety procedures. The rollout of the injections in a development timeline that compressed five to ten years of work into under one year.
📍Sasha Latypova (who has 25 years of pharmaceutical experience) argued the injections were developed under a military countermeasures framework, outside normal consumer protection law.
📍Dr. Mike Yeadon (former Pfizer Vice-President) argued safety procedures were bypassed in the sub-one-year development timeline, and he raised the issue of lipid nanoparticle accumulation – including in the ovaries (citing a 2012 publication and a Japanese-regulator-requested study). He also highlighted the evident correlation of Newfoundland/Labrador’s 96% vaccination rate and Canada’s highest infertility rate.
📍Peter Stassen presented Klaus Schwab’s COVID-19: The Great Reset publication in court, calling it “crime manual 2.0,” and cited Agenda 21/2030.
📍Financial analyst Catherine Austin Fitts urged financial activism – divesting from Pfizer/Moderna/Microsoft shares and rejecting digital ID.
The defense pointed to the widely-cited 95% efficacy claims; Stassen challenged the scientific basis of those figures.
Next steps: Judgment is anticipated around 9 December 2026 (or February 2027), with possible appeal.
Read more about The Netherlands Case:
https://worldcouncilforhealth.substack.com/p/one-lawyer-against-nine-peter-stassen
https://drtesslawrie.substack.com/p/global-architects-of-the-great-resetFlorida, USA
USA Florida 🇺🇸
October 2026 – The US State of Florida has filed a lawsuit against Pfizer and its CEO Albert Bourla, alleging deceptive marketing regarding COVID-19 vaccine safety and effectiveness. The state claims risks were concealed while billions of dollars were made. Pfizer contests the claims.
Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier is suing Pfizer with a billion dollar 49-page lawsuit for harming Florida residents and not telling them the dangers of their mRNA vaccines under the state’s deceptive and unfair trade practices law. The complaint alleges the company marketed the COVID shots as safe while failing to disclose early adverse-event reports involving deaths, myocarditis, strokes, and pregnancy outcomes, and promoted a transmission claim the trial never tested. The state is seeking an injunction, civil penalties, and disgorgement of profits.
The lawsuit centres on four main areas:
📍Safety representations: Florida alleges that Pfizer promoted its vaccine as safe and effective while inadequately disclosing information about adverse events, including myocarditis and possible risks during pregnancy.
📍Transmission claims: The state alleges Pfizer’s marketing gave consumers the impression that vaccination would prevent transmission. This is now known to be false.
📍Consumer protection: Florida argues that the alleged omissions and representations constituted deceptive or unfair commercial practices.
📍Financial benefit: The state alleges Pfizer and Bourla benefited financially from the disputed marketing.
Next steps: The most important new development is that Pfizer has moved the case from Florida state court into federal court on 2 November 2026. Pfizer and CEO Albert Bourla have also requested additional time to respond to Florida’s allegations. The lawsuit is progressing, but no court has yet determined any wrongdoing.
Read more about the Florida case:
https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/florida-attorney-general-sues-pfizer-ceo-over-covid-19-vaccine-claims-2026-10-01/
https://dockets.justia.com/docket/florida/flsdce/2:2026cv14452/727547
India 🇮🇳
February 2026 – In India, a *No Virus legal challenge has been brought before the High Court, questioning the scientific foundations of the COVID-19 response, including PCR testing, case definitions, lockdowns and emergency vaccination programmes.
Dr Sam Bailey has been following developments through her ongoing Viruses Unplugged series, highlighting efforts by campaigners to challenge established claims about viruses and the justification for pandemic measures. The case is ongoing.
*What is the No Virus theory?
The No Virus theory maintains that viruses as transmissible pathogens do not actually exist, and that illnesses labelled “viral” (including COVID-19) are instead the product of cellular degeneration, environmental toxicity, or other non-infectious causes, with “virus” particles being misinterpreted cellular debris or metabolic byproducts.
Watch the video of the Indian Case:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8YMQlU6Rw8
https://drsambailey.com/resources/videos/viruses-unplugged/no-virus-heats-up-in-indias-high-court
South Africa 🇿🇦
October 2021 – South African attorney Riekie Erasmus has challenged COVID-19 vaccination policies, advocating for informed consent and children’s rights.
In February 2023, three public-interest organisations brought an urgent constitutional application before the Johannesburg High Court, raising concerns about COVID-19 vaccination of children. On 24 February 2023, Justice Wepener dismissed the application and exceptionally ordered Erasmus, who represented the organisations, to pay the legal costs personally.
The order was not appealed, reportedly because of the risk of further substantial legal costs.
On 23 October 2026, Dr Tess Lawrie published an urgent appeal for support after Erasmus faced a personal costs liability of R134,680.38 (approximately US$8,500), reportedly payable within seven days.
Next Steps: The costs order remains legally binding. Erasmus is seeking financial assistance to meet the liability and avoid enforcement action.
Read the full article: STOP THE SHOTS Court Case in South Africa – Dr Tess Lawrie
Support the appeal: Riekie Erasmus Legal Costs Fundraiser
Justice Will Prevail
The mounting number of international legal cases clearly demonstrates that the tide is turning. We have moved beyond outright dismissal by regulators and institutional gatekeepers and are now entering a stage where evidence is being brought before the courts for legal scrutiny. We must continue to hold those responsible for the COVID-19 era to account and ensure that justice prevails.
