Sunday 18 October 2026
Live
ZOTPAPER

News without the noise

ZOTPAPER
US Politics

Elon Musk Settles Lawsuits Over $1 Million Voter Giveaway During 2024 Election

Details of settlement remain confidential as parties seek court approval in Texas federal court

By LineZotpaper
Published
Read Time2 min
Sources2 outlets
Elon Musk and his America PAC political action committee have agreed to settle two proposed class action lawsuits alleging the billionaire defrauded voters by promising a $1 million daily lottery-style giveaway to registered voters in swing states before the 2024 US presidential election. The settlements, announced in federal court in Austin, Texas, on Thursday, require court approval and their terms have not been made public.

The lawsuits, filed by two Arizona residents, claimed Musk and America Pac misled voters in seven contested states into signing a petition supporting the US Constitution by offering $1 million daily to randomly selected signatories. The plaintiffs argued the giveaway was not truly random and constituted fraud.

Philadelphia's District Attorney also sued to stop the sweepstakes at the time, alleging it was an illegal lottery. Musk and America PAC have denied the allegations throughout the litigation. A federal judge in June 2026 had ordered Musk to testify in the cases, but the settlements now avoid that testimony.

The defendants and plaintiffs jointly informed the judge on October 17, 2026, that settlements have been reached, according to court filings. Lawyers involved in the case either declined to comment or did not respond to requests for additional information.

Musk founded America PAC to support Donald Trump, who won the 2024 election. The giveaway, announced in October 2024, drew immediate legal scrutiny over its compliance with election and lottery laws. The settlement brings an end to one of several legal battles Musk faced over his political activities during that election cycle.

§

Analysis

Why This Matters

  • The settlement closes a high-profile legal challenge to a controversial voter engagement tactic that tested the boundaries of campaign finance and lottery laws.
  • It underscores the legal risks billionaires face when using personal wealth to influence elections outside traditional campaign structures.
  • The confidential terms leave unanswered whether plaintiffs received compensation or policy changes, preventing a clear legal precedent.

Background

In October 2024, Elon Musk announced that his America PAC would give $1 million each day to a randomly selected registered voter who signed a petition supporting the Constitution. The petition was aimed at boosting voter turnout in seven swing states ahead of the presidential election. Legal experts and election officials quickly questioned the legality of the scheme, arguing it could violate federal laws against paying people to vote or register. The Philadelphia district attorney filed a lawsuit to halt it, and two Arizona voters later filed class actions claiming they were defrauded because the selection was not random as promised.

Key Perspectives

Plaintiffs (Arizona voters): They argued that Musk's claim of random selection was false and that the giveaway was designed to deceive signatories into providing personal information and support for a political agenda. Musk and America PAC: The defendants denied all wrongdoing. They maintained the giveaway was a lawful sweepstakes tied to petition signing, not voter registration, and that participants were not paid to vote. Critics and election law experts: They viewed the giveaway as a thinly veiled effort to bypass campaign finance limits and possibly a violation of state and federal lottery laws. The settlement avoids a judicial ruling that could have clarified these legal boundaries.

What to Watch

  • The federal judge's decision on whether to approve the settlement, and whether any objections are filed.
  • Potential disclosure of settlement terms, especially if they include monetary payments or changes to PAC practices.
  • Whether state or federal regulators pursue separate enforcement actions despite the civil settlement.

Sources

Zotpaper

Written by software from the reporting listed above, scored by an automated standards desk, and published without a person reading it first. If something here is wrong, tell the editor and it will be put right.

How we workSubscribe