Elon Musk and America PAC Agree to Settle Two Putative Class Actions Over the 2024 $1 Million Voter Giveaway

Elon Musk and America PAC told a federal judge in Austin, Texas, on October 15, 2026, that they have agreed to settle two putative class actions over the daily $1 million giveaway the PAC ran before the 2024 presidential election. According to Reuters, the settlements are subject to court approval, and the filings did not include any terms. Musk and America PAC have denied the allegations.

As of October 16, 2026, there is no settlement claim form, no announced payment amount, no settlement administrator and no claims deadline. Treat any website offering a payout for this settlement with caution.

Quick Facts: McAferty v. Musk and Harvick v. Musk

Detail	Information
Defendants	Elon Musk and America PAC
Plaintiff, first case	Jacqueline McAferty (Arizona resident)
Plaintiff, second case	Joy Harvick (Arizona resident)
McAferty v. Musk	Case No. 1:24-cv-01346-RP
Harvick v. Musk	Case No. 1:24-cv-01373-RP
Court	U.S. District Court, Western District of Texas, Austin Division
Presiding judge	Robert Pitman
Core allegation	Voters were told $1 million recipients would be chosen at random, but recipients were allegedly selected in advance
Damages sought (McAferty)	At least $5 million for everyone who signed the petition, as reported by Reuters
Class certification	No certification order located; both cases remain putative class actions
Settlement notices filed	October 15, 2026
Settlement terms	Not disclosed in the filings
Court approval	Required, according to the parties’ notice to the court
Claim form	None

What Was Elon Musk’s $1 Million Giveaway for Voters?

In October 2024, Elon Musk announced that America PAC, the political action committee he founded to support Donald Trump’s presidential campaign, would give away $1 million every day until the November 5, 2024 election. Eligible participants were registered voters in seven battleground states (Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin) who signed a petition supporting the First and Second Amendments.

Signers provided personal information such as their name, address and phone number. The core question in both lawsuits is how the recipients were really chosen.

What Did Jacqueline McAferty Allege Against Elon Musk and America PAC?

McAferty filed her putative class action in the Western District of Texas, alleging that Musk and America PAC falsely induced voters to sign the petition and hand over personal information by promising that $1 million recipients would be chosen at random. She alleged that she would not have signed had she known she had no real chance of receiving the money. Her complaint also alleged that the defendants profited from the data and from the traffic the contest drove to Musk’s X platform.

Her complaint cited a statement made by Musk’s attorney in a related Pennsylvania hearing that the winners were being paid as spokespeople and were not chosen at random.

What Did Joy Harvick Allege Against Elon Musk and America PAC?

Joy Harvick filed a separate putative class action over the same giveaway. According to the draft record reviewed for this article, her claims included fraud, breach of contract, unjust enrichment and a request for injunctive relief. Each case has its own docket and procedural history, so rulings in McAferty v. Musk are not rulings in Harvick v. Musk.

What Was Elon Musk’s Defense in the America PAC Giveaway Lawsuits?

Musk and America PAC argued that the giveaway was not an illegal lottery and that voters were told recipients would be reviewed for an opportunity to earn $1 million as America PAC spokespeople. In their view, that made the payment compensation for work rather than a “prize.” They also argued that petition signers suffered no harm from providing their names, addresses and phone numbers.

America PAC later disclosed that specific criteria were used to select the 18 people who received the money, and that the payments were framed as a “sponsorship opportunity,” according to local reporting on the settlement.

What Has the Federal Court Decided in McAferty v. Musk?

Judge Robert Pitman’s rulings have shaped how far each claim could go:

• August 20, 2025: Judge Pitman ruled that McAferty plausibly alleged that Musk and America PAC wrongly induced her to provide personal identifying information. The court noted that some statements described the money as “selected to earn,” while others suggested it was being “awarded” or could be “won.”
• June 2026: A federal judge ruled that Musk must testify in the lawsuits, according to Reuters.
• August 18, 2026: According to the order posted on Justia, the court granted summary judgment to the defendants on McAferty’s breach-of-contract claim and denied it on her fraud claim, which was allowed to proceed. That order also reset the class-certification schedule.
• October 15, 2026: The parties notified the court that they had reached settlements in both cases.

These rulings are procedural. No court has found that Musk or America PAC committed fraud.

What Did the Philadelphia District Attorney’s Lawsuit Have to Do With These Cases?

Separately, Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner sued over the giveaway in Pennsylvania state court, arguing it was an illegal lottery. A Court of Common Pleas judge declined his request to stop the giveaway in November 2024, and, according to Reuters, another Philadelphia judge refused to end the giveaway in August 2025 after finding the prosecutor had not shown it was an illegal lottery.

It was in that Pennsylvania case that Musk’s attorney stated the winners were being paid as spokespeople rather than chosen at random. McAferty and other voters cited that statement in their own federal complaints.

Which Laws Apply to the Musk and America PAC Giveaway Lawsuits?

Several legal frameworks sit behind these cases. The first three below are the claims described in the filings and court rulings reviewed; the remainder provide context.

• Common-law fraud (Texas): A plaintiff generally must show a material false statement, made knowingly or recklessly, with intent that it be relied on, followed by reliance and injury. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b), fraud must be pleaded with particularity.
• Breach of contract: The theory that the public offer formed a binding unilateral contract. In McAferty, this claim did not survive summary judgment, according to the August 18, 2026 order.
• Unjust enrichment: The theory that the defendants kept a benefit, such as personal data, that they should not retain. This was reported as a claim in the Harvick case.
• Texas Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act (Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 17.41 et seq.): Texas’s main consumer-deception statute. The sources reviewed do not confirm that either plaintiff pleaded it, so it is included only as context for readers researching Texas consumer remedies.
• Texas lottery definition (Tex. Penal Code § 47.01): A lottery generally requires consideration, chance and a prize. Musk’s defense is aimed at this framework, arguing the payment was earned compensation rather than a prize.
• Pennsylvania lottery law (18 Pa.C.S. § 5512): The statute behind the Philadelphia District Attorney’s illegal-lottery theory.
• Federal election law (52 U.S.C. § 10307(c)): Prohibits paying or offering payment for registering to vote. Axios reported that the Department of Justice sent America PAC a letter warning the giveaway could violate federal law against paying people to register to vote, and that the giveaway went ahead afterward.
• Class Action Fairness Act (28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)): Provides federal jurisdiction over many class actions with minimal diversity and more than $5 million in controversy, which is relevant because McAferty sought at least $5 million.

How Does Court Approval Work for the Musk Settlements Under Federal Rule 23?

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e) requires court approval before a proposed class settlement can bind class members. The key requirements are:

1. Notice to the class (Rule 23(e)(1)): Class members must be given notice of a proposed settlement.
2. Fair, reasonable and adequate review (Rule 23(e)(2)): The judge considers whether class counsel and the class representatives adequately represented the class, whether the deal was negotiated at arm’s length, whether the relief is adequate and whether class members are treated equitably.
3. Objections and opt-outs (Rule 23(e)(5) and 23(c)(2)(B)): Class members may object, and in a Rule 23(b)(3) class they may generally exclude themselves.
4. Attorney’s fees (Rule 23(h)): Class counsel’s fee request is subject to court review.
5. Side agreements (Rule 23(e)(3)): The parties must identify any agreement made in connection with the proposal.
6. Notice to officials under the Class Action Fairness Act (28 U.S.C. § 1715): Defendants must notify the appropriate federal and state officials of a proposed class settlement, and final approval generally cannot come until at least 90 days after that notice.

No class has been certified in either case, so the parties may seek certification of a settlement class. Whether Rule 23(e) review applies in full depends on whether the agreements resolve claims for a class or only the named plaintiffs’ individual claims. Because the parties told the court the settlements require approval, the filed documents should answer that question.

Is There a Claim Form for the Elon Musk Giveaway Settlement?

No. No official claim form, settlement website or administrator exists as of October 16, 2026. A pending settlement is not a claims program. Anyone who signed the America PAC petition should wait for a notice from the court or from a settlement administrator named in an approved agreement, and should never pay a fee or share financial information to “reserve” a payment.

Who Could Be Included in a Settlement Class in the McAferty and Harvick Cases?

No settlement class has been defined. Based on the allegations, the people most directly affected are registered voters in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania or Wisconsin who signed America PAC’s petition and provided personal information in the weeks before the November 5, 2024 election. The actual definition, and whether any payment is involved, will depend on the filed agreements.

What Happens Next in the Musk and America PAC Settlement?

• Settlement papers: Reporting indicates a motion seeking approval is expected within 30 days of the October 15, 2026 notices. That timeline is a report, not a court order.
• Review by Judge Pitman: The court will review the terms and decide on approval and any notice process.
• If approved: The agreement will control what claims are released, what relief is provided and whether any person needs to act.
• If not approved: The litigation could resume, including class-certification proceedings and Musk’s court-ordered testimony.

Frequently Asked Questions About the Elon Musk $1 Million Giveaway Settlement

Did Elon Musk settle the America PAC $1 million giveaway lawsuits?

Musk and America PAC told the federal court in Austin on October 15, 2026, that they reached settlements in McAferty v. Musk and Harvick v. Musk. The settlements are subject to court approval, and the terms were not disclosed in the filings.

How much is the Elon Musk and America PAC settlement worth?

No amount has been disclosed. No dollar figure should be treated as established until a filed agreement or court order states it.

Did Elon Musk admit wrongdoing in the America PAC giveaway settlement?

No admission has been reported. Musk and America PAC denied the allegations, and no court has found that they committed fraud.

Was the McAferty v. Musk case certified as a class action?

No. Both lawsuits are putative class actions, and no class-certification order has been located. The court had reset the class-certification schedule in August 2026 before the settlements were announced.

What are the case numbers for the Musk giveaway lawsuits?

McAferty v. Musk is No. 1:24-cv-01346-RP, and Harvick v. Musk is No. 1:24-cv-01373-RP, both in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, Austin Division.

Can America PAC petition signers get money from the settlement?

Not yet. Whether any payment will be made depends on the terms of the agreements and on Judge Pitman’s approval.

What should America PAC petition signers do now?

Keep any confirmation emails, texts or screenshots from signing the petition in October or November 2024, and watch for an official court-ordered notice. You can follow the dockets through the Western District of Texas CM/ECF system and PACER by searching the two case numbers above.

Why did Musk’s lawyers say the giveaway winners were not chosen at random?

In the Pennsylvania case brought by the Philadelphia District Attorney, Musk’s attorney said the recipients were selected to earn the money as paid spokespeople. The defense used that account to argue the payments were not a prize and the giveaway was not an illegal lottery. The federal plaintiffs argued the public statements told voters the opposite.

Related Coverage on AllAboutLawyer.com

For another example of how courts review allegations of misleading business practices, see Grubhub Lawsuit, Grubhub Agrees to Pay $25 Million Over Deceptive Practices. For a large settlement involving user data, see Google Class Action Lawsuit: $700 Million Settlement Could Pay Over 100 Million Users, Who Qualifies and How to Claim.

Sources

1. Reuters, “Elon Musk agrees to settle lawsuits over 2024 election lottery,” October 15, 2026.
2. CNN, “Elon Musk settles fraud lawsuits over his $1 million giveaways to 2024 election voters,” October 15, 2026.
3. Reuters, “Elon Musk must face lawsuit claiming he ran illegal $1 million election lottery,” August 20, 2025.
4. Axios, “Musk sued over $1 million election giveaway,” November 6, 2024.
5. McAferty v. Musk, No. 1:24-cv-01346-RP, order dated August 18, 2026 (Justia).
6. U.S. District Court, Western District of Texas, CM/ECF docket access.
7. Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b), 23; 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(d), 1715; 52 U.S.C. § 10307(c); Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 17.41 et seq.; Tex. Penal Code § 47.01; 18 Pa.C.S. § 5512.

Disclaimer: This article is general information, not legal advice. Allegations are not findings of liability. AllAboutLawyer.com is a consumer legal information website, not a law firm.

Researched and written by Israr Ahmad, legal content researcher and founder of AllAboutLawyer.com. All facts verified against the Reuters and CNN reports on the October 15, 2026 settlement notices and the August 18, 2026 order in McAferty v. Musk posted on Justia, as of October 16, 2026. Last Updated: October 16, 2026.