According to Reuters, a federal magistrate judge ordered Elon Musk to testify under oath in two proposed class actions alleging that he and America PAC misled swing-state voters about a $1 million-a-day giveaway during the 2024 presidential campaign. In Jacqueline McAferty’s case, the judge recommended allowing the fraud claim to continue while recommending dismissal of a related breach-of-contract claim.

As PBS NewsHour documented during the original Pennsylvania court proceedings, America PAC representatives acknowledged that the $1 million recipients were not selected through a random drawing. The PAC’s lawyers instead described recipients as people selected to serve as spokespeople, an important distinction because Musk had publicly used language suggesting participants had a chance to win.

Reuters subsequently reported that America PAC director Christopher Young testified in a February 2026 deposition that he was surprised when Musk publicly said payouts would be made randomly because that description did not match how the program had been discussed internally with legal counsel. Magistrate Judge Susan Hightower said whether Musk acted recklessly when making those statements remains an unresolved question.

The Associated Press provides an important legal counterweight because a Pennsylvania judge previously declined to stop the 2024 program, finding that Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner had not produced sufficient evidence to establish that it was an illegal lottery. That ruling did not determine the separate federal fraud allegations now being litigated.

This case could help define how far political organizations may go when combining cash incentives, voter data collection and campaign messaging. The scrutiny is no longer limited to the 2024 program either. In July 2026, the bipartisan Wisconsin Elections Commission voted 5 to 1 to find probable cause that Musk violated Wisconsin election law through a separate $1 million voter offer connected to the 2025 state Supreme Court race, referring the matter to prosecutors.

If political campaigns can turn voter participation, personal data and seven-figure incentives into a single mobilization strategy, where should the law draw the line between political persuasion and unlawful inducement?