Elon Musk settles lawsuits over $1 million voter giveaway

Elon Musk and his America PAC have agreed to settle two proposed class-action lawsuits over the $1 million-a-day voter giveaway announced during the 2024 US election campaign. The settlement terms have not been made public and still require court approval. ¹²

The lawsuits were brought by two Arizona residents who said they were misled by Musk’s promise that a randomly selected registered voter in a swing state would receive $1 million each day. The plaintiffs argued that they would not have signed the petition tied to the giveaway if they had known the selection process was not genuinely random. ¹²

The legal action followed Musk’s public campaign to distribute the money through America PAC, the political action committee he created to support Donald Trump’s 2024 presidential bid. The giveaway attracted immediate scrutiny because it combined a large cash prize, a petition supporting the US Constitution and the collection of participants’ personal information. ¹

During earlier proceedings, Chris Gober, a representative for Musk’s America PAC, told a judge that the recipients were not chosen by chance. That statement conflicted with the public description of the giveaway as a random drawing and became a central part of the plaintiffs’ allegations. ¹

Philadelphia’s district attorney also sued to stop the giveaway, arguing that it could amount to an illegal lottery. The separate class-action cases concerned claims that Musk and America PAC had misled participants, rather than deciding whether the broader political campaign should have been allowed to continue. ¹

The Guardian reports that the settlement was disclosed in filings in federal court in Austin, Texas, and that the filings did not include financial terms. Lawyers involved in the cases either declined to comment or did not respond to requests for more information. Musk and America PAC have denied the allegations. ²

What happens next

The agreement is not the same as a court finding that the plaintiffs’ claims were proven. A judge must approve the settlement before the cases are resolved, and the undisclosed sum means readers cannot yet assess what the agreement will cost Musk or America PAC. The available reporting also does not establish whether the settlement changes how political groups can use prize promotions or petition data in future campaigns. ¹²

Our opinion

The important detail is not simply that a high-profile giveaway ended in a settlement. It is that the dispute centred on the gap between a public promise of randomness and testimony describing a selection process that was not random. Until the court approves the agreement and its terms become available, the responsible conclusion is narrower: the litigation has reached a proposed settlement, while the underlying allegations remain allegations. That distinction matters in a case involving political persuasion, personal data and a very large cash promise.

Hero image credit: Photo by Edmond Dantès on Pexels. The image shows a voting booth and US flag; it does not depict Musk, America PAC or the lawsuits. ³