The Tokyo District Court on Oct 29, 2026 ordered former House of Representatives member Kazuhiro Haraguchi to pay ¥2.2 million in damages for defaming the maker of a COVID-19 vaccine he described as a "bioweapon," finding defamation established. The suit, brought by Tokyo-based pharmaceutical company Meiji Seika Pharma, had sought ¥10 million.
The vaccine at the center of the case is a replicon vaccine, the first of its kind to enter practical use anywhere in the world. Meiji Seika Pharma received national approval to manufacture and sell it in Nov 2023, and it is sold in Japan under the brand name Costavie.
The shots are used in routine COVID-19 vaccinations. Haraguchi's posts and public statements targeted the vaccine's novelty and Japan's decision to approve it ahead of other countries.
What Haraguchi said
According to the complaint, Haraguchi, then still in office, argued on X and in books from Sept 2024 that the vaccine amounted to a "large-scale human experiment, whose greatest victims will be Japanese people." In the lower house election the following month, his official election bulletin read: "The fact that an unknown vaccine is approved only in Japan means it is no exaggeration to say we are being made into guinea pigs."
Meiji Seika Pharma told the court that Haraguchi's reach made the statements consequential. The company said his posts and writings eroded trust in the vaccine and endangered public health, and that the fallout included a flood of nuisance phone calls to its offices and a fall in sales that produced heavy financial losses.
Haraguchi's defense argued the statements were commentary on vaccine safety and on the government's approval process, and did not lower the company's standing in society. The court rejected that framing and found the defamation claim made out.
A ten-term lawmaker
Haraguchi served as internal affairs and communications minister under the former Democratic Party of Japan government. He held a lower house seat for ten consecutive terms before losing it in Feb 2026.
The ruling is the second court decision in a month to attach a price to public claims about the replicon vaccine. It also sets a marker for how far elected officials can go in questioning a newly approved product while in office.