Elon Musk, the world’s wealthiest man and a figure never far from controversy, is once again in the legal spotlight—this time over a $1 million-a-day election sweepstakes that some voters now allege was rigged from the start. On August 20, 2025, a federal judge in Texas ruled that Musk must face a class action lawsuit accusing him and his political action committee, America PAC, of misleading voters into believing they had a fair shot at a life-changing prize, when in reality, the winners had already been handpicked.
The case, which has been making headlines from Bloomberg to Reuters and The Independent, was filed by Jacqueline McAferty, an Arizona resident who claims she was duped into handing over her personal information—her name, phone number, email, and more—under the guise of a random sweepstakes. According to the complaint, Musk and America PAC promoted the contest as a daily opportunity for anyone who signed a petition in support of the U.S. Constitution to win $1 million. But as it turns out, the odds were never in the entrants’ favor.
Judge Robert Pitman, appointed by former President Barack Obama, rejected Musk’s request to dismiss the lawsuit, stating, “The Court finds it is plausible that [the plaintiff] would rely on Musk’s assertion that $1 million would be given out randomly notwithstanding his or America PAC’s later statements.” Pitman noted that the language used in the promotion—words like “awarding,” “giving away,” and “all you need to do is sign up”—was misleading and could reasonably have led people to believe they had a genuine chance to win.
“Many people who signed the petition had no real chance of winning $1 million,” the lawsuit alleges, as reported by The Independent. Instead, nine winners were pre-selected before the contest even began and had already signed employment contracts to serve as spokespeople for America PAC. This revelation came to light during a previous court case in Philadelphia, where District Attorney Larry Krasner challenged the legality of the sweepstakes. Although Krasner’s attempt to halt the contest failed, he did succeed in getting America PAC’s lawyer, Chris Gober, to admit on the stand that “The $1 million recipients are not chosen by chance.” Gober further confessed that the winners had been pre-selected and were, in fact, paid spokespeople.
The sweepstakes was rolled out in the fevered weeks leading up to the 2024 presidential election, a period marked by high political drama and intense efforts to sway voters in battleground states. Musk, who launched America PAC shortly before the election to support Donald Trump’s campaign, promoted the sweepstakes as a way to encourage participation in the democratic process. But the plaintiffs argue that the true intent was to harvest valuable personal data from voters, data that could be used for political targeting in crucial states.
“I would have never turned over my personal information had I known I could not have actually won the $1 million,” McAferty stated in her complaint, echoing the concerns of many who signed up for the contest. The lawsuit alleges that Musk and America PAC’s actions amount to an “illegal lottery scheme” designed to influence voters under false pretenses.
According to Reuters, the suit claims that Musk defrauded voters by luring them into signing the petition with the promise of a chance at the daily $1 million prize—a promise that was, in the plaintiffs’ words, “illegal and misleading.” The federal judge’s decision to let the case proceed marks a significant blow for Musk, who has been trying to distance himself from the fallout of the sweepstakes and his tumultuous involvement in U.S. politics.
After Trump’s victory in the 2024 election, Musk’s role in the political arena only grew more prominent. He briefly served as a senior adviser to the new administration and helped to launch the Department of Government Efficiency, according to The Independent. But the alliance between Musk and Trump was short-lived, ending in a public falling-out. Musk then floated the idea of starting his own third party—the “America Party”—although recent reports suggest he has abandoned that plan and is now considering backing other Republican candidates in 2028.
The controversy surrounding the sweepstakes has not only raised legal questions but also sparked a broader debate about the ethics of political fundraising and voter engagement in the digital age. The requirement that participants hand over personal information—information that could be used for everything from campaign outreach to targeted advertising—has drawn criticism from privacy advocates and political watchdogs alike. For many, the case highlights the murky intersection of big money, big data, and American democracy.
Philadelphia DA Larry Krasner’s earlier legal challenge, although unsuccessful in stopping the sweepstakes, played a pivotal role in bringing the contest’s true nature to light. On the witness stand, America PAC’s lawyer admitted that the contest was not a game of chance at all, but a carefully orchestrated marketing ploy. That admission has now paved the way for the current class action suit, which Judge Pitman has allowed to proceed.
The lawsuit is open to anyone who signed the America PAC petition, although legal experts note that the number of plaintiffs is unlikely to affect the size of any potential financial penalty or judgment against Musk. The outcome of the case could have far-reaching implications for future political campaigns and the use of sweepstakes or lotteries as voter engagement tools.
For Musk, the stakes are high—not just financially, but reputationally. While he has weathered storms before, from corporate controversies to social media spats, the class action suit strikes at the heart of his credibility and his influence in American politics. As the case moves forward, all eyes will be on the courtroom, where the world’s richest man will have to answer to the voters he once courted with million-dollar promises.
With Judge Pitman’s ruling, the legal process is set to unfold in the coming months. Whether Musk and America PAC will be held accountable for what plaintiffs call a “sham” sweepstakes remains to be seen. But for now, the case serves as a cautionary tale about the power of persuasion, the value of personal data, and the lengths some will go to win in the high-stakes game of American politics.
