Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
No. Musk publicly described the awards as random, but on November 4, 2024, America PAC lawyer Chris Gober told a Philadelphia court that the recipients “are not chosen by chance.” PAC director Chris Young testified that the organization vetted petition signers as potential spokespeople. Those courtroom statements contradicted the public description; they were not a final judicial finding about how every award was selected.
What Musk promised—and what the PAC said in court
At a campaign event in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, on October 19, 2024, Musk announced that America PAC would award $1 million each day through Election Day to people who had signed its petition. He said recipients would be selected “randomly” and told the first recipient, John Dreher, that the only condition was serving as a spokesperson for the petition. The PAC described a registered swing-state voter as being “selected to earn” $1 million. A federal court later recited Musk’s October 20 post saying petition signers had “a daily chance of winning $1,000,000.” (McAferty v. Musk, order signed August 20, 2025)
At a November 4 hearing in Philadelphia, Gober stated: “The $1 million recipients are not chosen by chance.” Young testified that the PAC vetted signers to identify people whose personalities and values made them suitable as spokespeople. Young also said recipients signed nondisclosure agreements. The Associated Press reported that more than one million people across seven states had signed the petition by the hearing. (Associated Press, November 4, 2024)
Why the selection method mattered
The central contradiction was between the public pitch of a random daily chance and the courtroom account of vetting people for their suitability as advocates. A random drawing and a selection process based on a candidate’s potential as a spokesperson are different methods. The hearing statements established that the PAC described its selection as non-random; they did not, by themselves, decide whether the program violated the law or establish the facts about every recipient.
#1 Best Overall
The Philadelphia District Attorney, Larry Krasner, filed a civil case on October 28, 2024, alleging an illegal lottery and consumer-protection violations and asking a court to stop the program. The DA’s office characterized the action as a bid to stop the defendants’ “lottery” and unfair or deceptive practices; that was the plaintiff’s position, not a court finding. (Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office, November 1, 2024)
What happened in the Philadelphia case
Musk and America PAC sought to move the case from state court to federal court. On November 1, 2024, a federal judge sent it back to Philadelphia state court. At the November 4 hearing, Judge Angelo Foglietta denied Krasner’s request for an injunction, so the program was allowed to continue through Election Day. (Associated Press, November 4, 2024)
Rank #2
- Each Order is for 2 lotto ticket holders!
- Crafted of archival quality polypropylene plastic. Front is crystal clear; back is one of five gorgeous colors.
- Overall size: 4" x 9".
- Inside capacity of large pocket: 3 3/4" x 8 3/4".
- Inside capacity of small pocket: 3 3/4" x 2 1/8".
In a later written opinion, Foglietta said the DA had offered no evidence of misuse beyond speculation. He also explained that an injunction was superfluous with only one drawing left and the final recipient not slated to be from Pennsylvania. That ruling addressed the request for an urgent injunction; it was not a blanket judicial endorsement of the selection method or a general ruling that every aspect of the giveaway was lawful. (Associated Press report republished by CBS News, November 13, 2024)
A separate lawsuit had a different, limited outcome
In McAferty v. Musk, an individual plaintiff alleged fraud and breach of contract, as well as a claim under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act. On August 20, 2025, a federal court dismissed the Texas consumer-protection claim but allowed the fraud and contract claims to proceed beyond the pleading stage. The court found the allegations plausible, including the allegation that the plaintiff may have provided contact information in reliance on public statements about a random chance to win. It did not find that the defendants had committed fraud or breached a contract. The order does not establish class certification or that all petition signers had a claim. (McAferty v. Musk, order signed August 20, 2025)
Rank #3
- Crafted in archival quality polypropylene plastic. Front is crystal clear, the back is one of five gorgeous colors.
- Crafted in archival quality polypropylene plastic. Front is crystal clear, the back is one of five gorgeous colors.
- Pack includes one ticket holder in each color: Wine, Metallic Blue, Metallic Green, Metallic Purple, and 24K Gold. Each color is emblazoned with our attractive Lotto logo.
- Overall Size: 4" x 9".
- Inside capacity of large pocket: 3 ¾" x 8 ¾" - Open Short Side.
| Proceeding | What it concerned | Outcome established by the cited orders and reports |
|---|---|---|
| Philadelphia DA’s case | A request for an injunction under Pennsylvania law to stop the program before Election Day. | The federal removal attempt was remanded to state court; the state judge denied the requested injunction. The later opinion said the DA had not shown evidence of misuse beyond speculation and discussed the limited practical value of an injunction at that late stage. |
| McAferty v. Musk | An individual plaintiff’s claims, including fraud, breach of contract, and a Texas consumer-protection claim. | The court dismissed the Texas consumer-protection claim and allowed the fraud and contract claims to proceed at the pleading stage. That was not a final decision on their merits. |
What the record does—and does not—establish
The reported figure of nine people awarded $1 million in October 2024 appears in the 2025 federal opinion as part of the plaintiff’s allegations; the opinion did not independently audit payments. The program was tied to the 2024 election period and is not an ongoing giveaway.
Quick Recap
Best Value
- Ergonomic Design: The Lottery Ticket Scratcher boasts an ergonomically sculpted design that provides a comfortable and firm grip, eliminating the discomfort of strained fingers during extended scratch-off sessions.
- Durability & Longevity: Crafted from durable materials, this accessory guarantees longevity and enduring utility, ensuring it remains a reliable companion for countless scratch-off adventures.
- Effortless Brush Feature: An innovative brush feature is seamlessly integrated, allowing users to meticulously clear away any remnants from their scratch-off endeavors with ease, promoting a more sophisticated and efficient scratching experience.
- Dual-Sided Scratch-Off Tickets: Comes with two lottery ticket scratcher tools, each featuring dual-sided functionality. One end sports a shaving-style head for easy scraping, while the other utilizes a pushing-style head for smooth scratching, all made of stainless steel for durability and a premium feel.
- Eco-Friendly Ticket Holder: The accompanying lottery ticket holder is crafted from PP (Polypropylene) material, making it environmentally friendly and safe for use. Its lightweight yet sturdy properties ensure your tickets are protected while remaining convenient to carry.
Rank #4
- Each Order is for 1 lotto ticket holder!
- Crafted of archival quality polypropylene plastic. Front is crystal clear; back is one of five gorgeous colors.
- Overall size: 4" x 9".
- Inside capacity of large pocket: 3 3/4" x 8 3/4".
- Inside capacity of small pocket: 3 3/4" x 2 1/8".
- Established: Musk publicly used “randomly” and described a daily chance to win; Gober later told the Philadelphia court recipients were not chosen by chance; Young described vetting for spokesperson suitability.
- Not established by the Philadelphia injunction ruling: a final determination that the program was lawful in every respect, or a judicial finding resolving the factual details of every selection.
- Not established by the August 2025 order: that fraud or breach of contract occurred. Those claims survived a motion to dismiss, which meant only that they could proceed beyond that stage.
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.
