Elon Musk remains under legal scrutiny over America PAC’s 2024 petition-payment program and a separate $1 million-a-day prize promotion. In June 2026, Reuters reported that a magistrate judge ordered Musk to testify under oath in two proposed class actions and recommended that one alleged-deception claim proceed. Those were procedural developments, not a final finding that Musk or America PAC broke election law or committed fraud.
What America PAC offered voters
In October 2024, Musk and America PAC promoted a petition supporting the First and Second Amendments in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. According to a 2025 Eastern District of Pennsylvania court record, eligible signers were offered $47, and people referring eligible signers could receive the same amount. The offer for Pennsylvania participants later rose to $100. The court record said signatories were told payments were expected by November 30, 2024, subject to verification of information.
Separately, Musk advertised daily $1 million prizes for petition signers. The two offers are often discussed together, but they raise different questions: whether promised petition-related payments were made, and whether the prize promotion’s registration-based eligibility violated election or state law.
Did Musk pay people to vote?
The available case descriptions do not establish that the program paid people to cast ballots. The petition payments were tied to signing or referring signers to a petition; the separate prize promotion was advertised to petition signers and drew scrutiny because eligibility was linked to voter registration. That distinction matters: a legal dispute about payments connected to registration is not the same as proof that anyone was paid to vote.
The Tool Desk
Outbyte PC Repair FREEClear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →Outbyte Driver Updater FREEScan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →Federal law prohibits paying or offering to pay people for registering to vote or voting. In an October 25, 2024 letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland, Senators Peter Welch and Richard Blumenthal quoted that prohibition and urged an investigation, arguing the scheme appeared to violate the law. Their letter was advocacy, not a Justice Department determination or a court ruling on the program’s legality.
What the Pennsylvania sweepstakes ruling did—and did not—decide
Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner sought to stop the $1 million sweepstakes under Pennsylvania law. On November 4, 2024, a Pennsylvania judge allowed it to continue through Election Day. That ruling decided the request to halt the promotion in that proceeding; it did not resolve every question about federal election law, later claims over promised payments, or alleged deception.
At the hearing, Musk’s lawyer, Chris Gober, said, “The $1 million recipients are not chosen by chance,” according to the Associated Press. That statement is relevant to what was represented about the promotion, but by itself it does not establish liability.
Where the later lawsuits stand
| Proceeding | Issue and claims | Latest status in the cited reporting |
|---|---|---|
| Pennsylvania state-court effort to stop the sweepstakes | Philadelphia’s district attorney sought to halt the $1 million promotion under Pennsylvania law. | A judge allowed the promotion to continue through Election Day 2024. This was not a final ruling on the later payment or deception cases. |
| Pennsylvania payment litigation | Petition signers and referrers alleged that Musk, America PAC and related defendants failed to pay all promised amounts. Claims included breach of contract and promissory estoppel; one plaintiff also asserted Pennsylvania wage-payment claims. | In a January 7, 2026 opinion, the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied a motion to strike, granted in part and denied in part a motion to dismiss in Doe, and denied dismissal in Maglietta. These are rulings on whether claims could proceed, not findings that defendants owe a particular amount or breached an agreement. |
| Separate Pennsylvania canvasser lawsuit | A canvasser alleged that more than $20,000 was owed for petition referrals. | The Associated Press reported the allegation and America PAC spokesperson Andrew Romeo’s response: the PAC was committed to paying for legitimate signatures and could withhold payment in fraud cases. The allegation and the PAC’s explanation are each a party’s position, not a court finding. |
| Two proposed federal class actions | Plaintiffs alleged, among other things, that prize winners were not selected randomly and that voters were induced to provide personal identifying information. | Reuters reported on June 25, 2026, that Magistrate Judge Susan Hightower ordered Musk to testify under oath. In one case, she recommended allowing an alleged deception claim to proceed and dismissing a related contract claim. District Judge Robert Pitman still had to review those recommendations; a separate motion to dismiss in the other case was also awaiting his decision in Reuters’ report. |
Reuters said the magistrate judge considered it an open question whether Musk acted recklessly when he described the selection as random. A recommendation by a magistrate judge is not the same as a final ruling by the district judge, and the June 2026 report does not establish what happened in the cases after that date.
Windows Errors? Fix Them Before They Spread
Repair common Windows errors and clear accumulated junk for a smoother, more stable PC - no reinstall needed.Free scan · no reinstallCrashes, No Sound, or Screen Glitches?
Random freezes, missing sound and display glitches usually trace back to one bad driver. Find and replace yours safely.Free scan · under a minuteWhat “serious trouble” means here
The order requiring sworn testimony and the recommendation that an alleged deception claim proceed show meaningful litigation exposure: Musk may have to answer questions, and at least one claim was recommended to continue. The Pennsylvania payment cases likewise leave some allegations in litigation. But the proceedings have different legal theories and remedies, and none of the cited developments is a final determination that Musk or America PAC committed fraud or violated election law.
For a signer or referrer asking about an unpaid amount, the reported litigation concerns allegations by particular plaintiffs and does not itself establish that every participant is owed money. The relevant offer, eligibility verification, referral records and payment history may matter to an individual claim.
Quick Recap
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.
