I'm not sure about your second point (I hope so, but I'm unfamiliar with the legal immunity granted to pharmaceutical companies), but I can absolutely see your first being a valid claim of fraud.

The substack I link to is interdasting, in that the clinical trials themselves appear to utilize legal loopholes, have several conflicts of interest, and their data collection methods are suspect -- both in terms of where they came from and how the data was interpreted (with bias).

THIS could negate their immunity from being sued, as they procured EUA under false pretenses / manipulated data, aka fraud.