I could quibble with the definition of vaccine, since it once meant a dead version of the disease that was intended to cause antibodies and was modified (including on the CDC website) to anything that produces antibodies, but I agree — it’s really unlikely that a court would uphold this distinction, and I would be shocked if they ruled that the pharma companies don’t get immunity on the basis of such an argument. Hence yes, the post is nothingburger clickbait.
The original definition of vaccines included that they prevented infection (in the case of viruses, infection is when the virus replicates in the body). The most recent definition is that they merely promote an immune response. The average person who took the shot probably believed they were getting the former definition and that it would prevent infection. They were told that “breakthrough” infections would be rare.