Elon Musk and America PAC faced two proposed federal class actions over the 2024 $1 million-a-day voter giveaway. The plaintiffs allege that signers were told winners would be selected randomly, when recipients were instead chosen for their potential value as PAC spokespeople. In a June 25, 2026, report, Reuters said a federal magistrate judge ordered Musk to testify under oath and recommended that one plaintiff’s fraud claim proceed. That was a recommendation—not a final finding of fraud—and the report said a district judge still had to review it.
What the 2024 giveaway offered
Before the 2024 presidential election, America PAC promoted a $1 million daily award to eligible petition signers in seven swing states. The Philadelphia district attorney’s 2024 complaint described the states as Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, and alleged that the awards would be made each day through Election Day.
The offer and the lawsuits concern a petition campaign and the selection of award recipients. The current class-action allegations are not a court finding that anyone was paid to vote.
What the later federal lawsuits allege
Dispute over whether selection was random
Arizona plaintiffs Joy Harvick and Jacqueline McAferty allege that Musk and America PAC induced people in the seven states to sign the petition by representing that $1 million recipients would be chosen randomly. They say recipients were actually selected because they might make useful America PAC spokespeople. Reuters reported the plaintiffs’ allegation that 18 winners were chosen for that reason; that figure is not an independent finding by a court.
Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minute2Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errors3Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitches#1 Best Overall
The magistrate judge said it remained an open question whether Musk acted recklessly when describing the payments as random. America PAC director Christopher Young testified in a February 2026 deposition, as quoted by Reuters, that Musk’s public wording differed from how the program had been discussed with legal counsel: “It was not the way that we had — you know, with legal counsel and consultation, discussed the program and how it would run.” Young’s testimony is part of the reported record, not a judicial finding of fraud.
Claims about personal information
The plaintiffs also allege deception connected to the collection of personal information from petition signers. Those allegations are being litigated; the June 2026 report did not establish that a court had determined the information was collected unlawfully.
What the June 2026 court update did—and did not—decide
Reuters reported on June 25, 2026, that a federal magistrate judge ordered Musk to testify under oath in the two proposed class actions. The magistrate recommended allowing one plaintiff’s fraud claim to proceed and recommended dismissing a related contract claim. District Judge Robert Pitman was to review that recommendation and decide a separate motion to dismiss.
A magistrate’s recommendation is not the district judge’s final decision. The report therefore does not establish that a court finally found fraud, that the proposed classes were certified, or that the cases reached trial. The materials available for this account do not establish whether the district judge later adopted the recommendation, whether Musk testified, or whether the cases were resolved after that report.
How the lawsuits differ from the 2024 Philadelphia case
The earlier Philadelphia proceeding was an effort to stop the giveaway before Election Day, not a decision on the later class-action allegations. The Philadelphia district attorney’s complaint alleged that the sweepstakes was an illegal lottery and violated Pennsylvania consumer-protection law. A Pennsylvania judge declined to block the program, and the case moved to federal court. That outcome allowed the giveaway to continue at the time; it did not decide whether the later plaintiffs were misled about how winners were selected.
| Proceeding | What was at issue | Reported procedural outcome |
|---|---|---|
| Philadelphia action in 2024 | The district attorney alleged an illegal lottery and consumer-protection violations and sought to stop the giveaway before Election Day. | A Pennsylvania judge declined to block the program; the case moved to federal court. This was not a ruling on the later class-action fraud allegations. |
| Two proposed federal class actions reported in 2026 | Plaintiffs allege deception about random selection and personal-information collection. | On June 25, 2026, Reuters reported an order for Musk to testify and a magistrate’s recommendation on claims, subject to district-judge review. |
The Wisconsin election matter is separate
The Wisconsin episode concerned posts and petition-related advocacy during a 2025 state Supreme Court election, not the 2024 presidential-election giveaway lawsuits. In July 2026, the Wisconsin Elections Commission referred two complaints for possible prosecution after finding probable cause, according to the Associated Press. In August, special prosecutor Tim Gruenke declined to bring charges. AP reported that he did not believe a jury would convict in light of the post’s correction and intent, and because nobody was paid something of value for voting.
Rank #4
- Team of Rivals The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln
That was a prosecutor’s decision in a separate matter—not a court ruling on the federal class actions or a finding about the 2024 giveaway.
Quick Recap
Best Value
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
