Elon Musk and his political action committee have agreed to settle two federal lawsuits accusing them of deceiving voters with a $1 million daily giveaway during the 2024 presidential election.
The agreements come after a federal judge allowed a fraud claim to proceed and another ordered Musk to testify under oath. The settlement terms remain undisclosed, and the court has not found Musk or his political organization liable.
The Million-dollar Promise
In October 2024, as Donald Trump and Kamala Harris battled for the White House, Musk launched an unusual campaign targeting voters in seven closely contested states. The campaign covered Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.
His America PAC offered registered voters a chance to receive $1 million for signing a petition supporting the First and Second Amendments.
On October 19, Musk announced that he would award $1 million daily until Election Day. America PAC reinforced the announcement on X:
BREAKING: Elon Musk announces that he will be randomly awarding $1 MILLION every day from now until Election Day to registered Pennsylvania voters who sign America PAC’s petition and surprised a member of the audience as the first winner.
The promotion encouraged voters to sign the petition and provide their names, addresses, telephone numbers, and email addresses.
The PAC also offered referral payments. Participants could earn $47 for each eligible registered voter they persuaded to sign, with payments reaching $100 in Pennsylvania.
The initiative drew national attention. Musk appeared at campaign events presenting enormous checks to recipients. America PAC ultimately awarded $1 million payments to 18 people.
But the giveaway faced a fundamental challenge. Were the winners actually selected at random?
In November 2024, Musk’s lawyer acknowledged during separate Pennsylvania litigation that recipients were selected to serve as paid spokespeople for America PAC. They were not chosen through a random drawing.
That admission became central to subsequent federal fraud lawsuits.
Voters Take Musk to Court
Two Arizona residents, Jacqueline McAferty and Joy Harvick, filed separate proposed class actions in federal court in Austin, Texas.
The plaintiffs argued that Musk and America PAC had induced voters to surrender valuable personal information by advertising a lottery that did not operate as promised.
McAferty alleged fraud and breach of contract. Harvick raised additional claims, including unjust enrichment and violations of Texas consumer-protection law.
The cases challenged more than the distribution of prizes. They questioned whether a political organization could obtain voter information through allegedly misleading financial incentives.
Musk and America PAC denied wrongdoing.
Their defense centered on the nature of the awards. As America PAC lawyer Chris Gober acknowledged in court:
The $1 million recipients are not chosen by chance.… We know exactly who will be announced as the $1 million recipient today and tomorrow.
Yet the public advertisements had repeatedly emphasized random selection.
McAferty testified that she relied on the advertised randomness. According to the court,
Plaintiff also testified that she “never would have signed up for this if [she] hadn’t thought it was a random drawing, and that there was actually no chance to win,” and that it was “ridiculous” to think “anybody would sign up for a drawing if they knew there was no chance to win.”
Her argument was straightforward. She had provided personal information in exchange for an opportunity that allegedly never existed on the advertised terms.
What the Court Found
In an August 18 ruling, U.S. District Judge Robert Pitman allowed McAferty’s fraud claim to proceed, citing evidence that America PAC’s selection process contradicted its public promise of random awards.
Pitman wrote:
A jury could surely conclude that America PAC’s process of reviewing a “vetting document” to make the “best selection of someone who ideologically aligned with America PAC” — which included “everything from criminal background history to age, marital status, children” and social media content — was far from random.
Musk’s lawyers argued that “randomly” was too indefinite to establish a false statement. The judge dismissed that argument, saying it “warrants little analysis.”
Musk had also participated in discussions about the program. Therefore, Pitman wrote, “A jury could therefore infer that Musk knew the spokespeople would not be chosen randomly,” or that he acted recklessly when making the claim.
The court dismissed McAferty’s breach-of-contract claim but allowed the fraud claim to proceed. It also rejected Musk’s attempt to avoid potential liability by disputing his authority over America PAC.
The ruling did not establish fraud. It found sufficient evidence to let a jury decide whether Musk and America PAC committed it.
The Value of Voter Information
The court also examined whether McAferty suffered a financial injury.
Musk’s lawyers argued that she had lost only a speculative chance at $1 million. They also challenged her eligibility, although she produced evidence of Arizona voter registration dating to 1999.
More importantly, Pitman recognized that the personal information she provided had potential market value. Arizona’s public voter rolls do not include telephone numbers or email addresses.
As the ruling explained, McAferty’s theory was that she
gave away the value of her personally identifiable information (“PII”) for nothing, without receiving the bargained-for benefit from Defendants.
The court also cited testimony that America PAC examined petition signers’ voting histories after the election to assess whether the campaign influenced their participation.
Thus, the case involved more than disputed prizes. It concerned valuable voter information collected through an allegedly deceptive promotion.
Settlement Before Musk’s Testimony
In June, U.S. Magistrate Judge Susan Hightower ordered Musk to testify under oath about his involvement in the program.
On Thursday, before Musk’s anticipated deposition, the parties notified the federal court that they had reached settlements in both lawsuits.
In the Harvick case, they requested a 30-day pause to finalize the agreement and seek preliminary approval.
The terms remain undisclosed. Neither proposed class had been certified, and the settlements require judicial approval. The parties have not disclosed any payment amounts or conditions governing the collected voter data.
The settlements would spare Musk from testifying under oath and facing a potential fraud trial. They establish neither liability nor wrongdoing.
The Real Prize: Voter Data
The $1 million giveaway was not America PAC’s first controversial attempt to collect voter information.
Months earlier, an investigation by Fast Company found that the organization ran Facebook and Instagram advertisements encouraging voter registration. Clicking the ads opened forms requesting personal information directly within the platforms. After submitting their details, users were not directed to official voter registration websites. Meta’s public advertising archive did not include the forms, making it difficult to determine what information the PAC collected and what it told users about its use.
Campaign Legal Center’s Saurav Ghosh accused the PAC of seeking to “mine voters’ data under the false pretense of helping them register to vote.” America PAC denied improper conduct.
America PAC’s current privacy policy goes considerably further. It explicitly allows the sharing or sale of certain personal information, including political affiliations and opinions, to business partners. It also describes profiling individuals according to their preferences, behavioral tendencies, and psychological characteristics. The policy, updated in August 2026, does not establish whether information collected during the 2024 giveaway was sold or shared under those terms.
Yet the underlying concern remains. Voter databases can be enriched with commercial information, used to construct individual political profiles, and retained for future campaigns.
The settlements may end the fraud litigation. But they offer no public accounting of how America PAC has used the personal information it collected, who has access to it, or how it might be exploited in future elections.
