Judge Orders Musk to Testify in $1 Million Giveaway Suits

Q: Will this lawsuit force future celebrity giveaways to prove their selection process is genuinely random?

Probably not by itself, but it could push the industry toward stronger proof and documentation when a giveaway is advertised as “random.” The Musk case does not create a new legal rule from scratch. U.S. sweepstakes and promotional law already requires that material claims be truthful. If organizers say winners are chosen randomly, that representation can be treated as material under federal and state deceptive-practices laws. The core issue in this lawsuit is that the giveaway was publicly described as random, while internal statements suggest winners were picked for another reason. If the court allows the fraud claim to proceed or the case ends in a damaging settlement, the practical effect could be significant. Celebrity promoters, PACs, brands and platforms would have a stronger incentive to keep written rules, preserve selection records, use independent administrators, and avoid using “random” unless they can substantiate it. That is especially true because class actions and regulator scrutiny often focus on whether the public was misled, not just on whether a promotion looked informal. Still, one lawsuit will not automatically force every future celebrity giveaway to prove randomness in court or through audits. A broader shift usually comes from a mix of court rulings, settlements, FTC or state enforcement, and risk management by lawyers and sponsors. So the likely outcome is tighter compliance and more transparency, not a brand-new universal mandate.

Q: If not truly random, what were the secret criteria used to select winners in Musk's $18 million giveaway?

The alleged nonrandom criterion was that recipients were picked because they “might be good spokespeople for America PAC,” not by chance. That account comes from statements cited in court from one of Musk’s lawyers and from testimony by America PAC Director Christopher Young. According to the lawsuits, Musk publicly described the promotion as a random $1 million-a-day giveaway, creating the impression of a lottery-style drawing among petition signers in battleground states. But plaintiffs say the actual process was different. Young testified he was “surprised” by Musk’s use of the word “random” because it did not match how the program had been designed. The judge cited that testimony in recommending that a fraud claim proceed, finding there was enough basis to question whether voters were misled about a material part of the promotion. What remains unclear is how America PAC decided who would qualify as a “good” or “ideal” spokesperson. The public court record described in the reporting does not spell out a full scoring system or detailed internal checklist. It indicates only that the winners were allegedly selected for their perceived usefulness as advocates for the PAC, rather than through a genuinely random draw. That unresolved gap is one reason Musk has now been ordered to testify under oath, with plaintiffs seeking to learn what specific internal standards, discussions, or vetting methods were used to choose the 18 recipients of the $18 million.

3 articles · Updated · The Independent · Jun 26

U.S. Magistrate Judge Susan Hightower ordered Elon Musk to sit for a sworn deposition in two proposed class actions over his $1 million-a-day 2024 election giveaway.
Her Thursday ruling also recommended letting one plaintiff pursue a fraud claim, saying it remains unresolved whether Musk acted recklessly by repeatedly describing the payouts as random.
The suits by Arizona residents Joy Harvick and Jacqueline McAferty say Musk and America PAC collected voters' personal information in seven battleground states by advertising a lottery-like drawing that was not actually random.
That allegation draws on a lawyer's statement that 18 winners were picked because they 'might be good spokespeople for America PAC' and on February 2026 testimony from PAC director Christopher Young that Musk's description surprised him.
U.S. District Judge Robert Pitman will decide whether to adopt Hightower's recommendations and separately rule on Musk and America PAC's bid to dismiss Harvick's lawsuit.