In a Philadelphia courtroom on Monday, a lawyer for Elon Musk disclosed that winners of Musk’s $1 million daily prize giveaway in key election swing states are not chosen randomly—contradicting Musk's prior claims when announcing the contest last month.

Legal experts consulted by... warned that this revelation could have legal repercussions across various jurisdictions due to consumer protection laws against deceptive practices. "This is absolutely, unambiguously illegal," stated Christopher Peterson, a University of Utah law professor specializing in consumer protection. "You cannot lawfully lie to the public about conducting a random sweepstakes, lottery, or contest and then rig the results to hand-select the winners," he said. "It really is not complicated. This is just fraud; a simple, ugly fraud on the public." According to Peterson, Musk and his super PAC’s actions may constitute both civil and criminal offenses.


Musk's America PAC declined to comment on the statement or similar analyses by other legal experts, and Musk did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

During the hearing, America PAC attorney Chris Gober confirmed that winners were not selected randomly, as in a lottery. Instead, the super PAC selected individuals they believed would serve as effective political advocates.

This revelation sharply contradicted Musk’s statement at an Oct. 19 Pennsylvania rally, where he introduced the contest to support a petition promoting free speech and gun rights. “We’re going to be awarding $1 million randomly to people who have signed the petition every day from now until the election,” Musk said to enthusiastic applause.



The acknowledgment that Musk’s statements were untrue has sparked backlash on his social media platform, X. Some users claimed he misled or even defrauded petition signers, who were required to provide names, email addresses, phone numbers, and mailing addresses, and had to be registered voters in one of seven swing states: Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, or Wisconsin.


The America PAC’s $1 million daily giveaway has been central to Elon Musk’s campaign efforts supporting former President Donald Trump. Musk has invested over $118 million in efforts to re-elect Trump, including multiple in-person appearances in Pennsylvania. Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner filed a lawsuit against Musk and America PAC, alleging that the giveaway constitutes an illegal lottery under Pennsylvania law, which led to Monday’s court hearing.


During the hearing, John Summers, an attorney representing Krasner, described Chris Gober’s disclosure—that winners were not chosen randomly—as “a flat-out admission of liability.”

While Chris Gober argued that the non-random selection of winners meant Musk’s $1 million giveaway was not a lottery, legal experts noted that the statement could expose Musk and America PAC to further legal claims, including under federal consumer protection laws or in the seven swing states where winners were chosen.

Rebecca Tushnet, a Harvard Law School professor specializing in First Amendment and false advertising, considered Gober’s statement an “admission of liability.” She argued, “They falsely advertised that people who never had a chance to win should participate, and participation meant providing the PAC with valuable information about voters to target.” She added that many states have deceptive trade practices laws that could apply, though some restrict these laws to conduct involving the sale of goods or services.



Tushnet suggested that plaintiffs' attorneys might pursue class action lawsuits for consumer protection violations, and state attorneys general may also be interested in enforcement actions. George Conway, a prominent attorney and Trump critic, agreed, saying that state attorneys general could view the disclosure as a straightforward consumer protection issue. "This is actually bread and butter stuff for them," he noted, emphasizing that large giveaways typically must meet specific legal requirements.

Neither the Pennsylvania attorney general nor the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) would comment, and several other state attorneys general did not immediately respond.


Not all experts, however, see grounds for action. David Vladeck, a Georgetown law professor, remarked that the situation might not warrant intervention, noting, “I can’t imagine any AG or the FTC getting into the middle of this very minor dust-up.” While he acknowledged Musk’s offer might be seen as misleading, he pointed out that it was brief and unlikely to recur. Vladeck raised a separate question, however, about possible federal election law violations, which prohibit payments to encourage voting or voter registration. He speculated that criminal authorities might investigate whether there was an attempt to exchange cash for votes, even if disguised as a lottery.

In North Carolina, Wake County District Attorney Lorrin Freeman confirmed that her office had no current basis for investigating Musk under state law.



Jeff Sovern, a consumer protection law professor at the University of Maryland, argued that Musk’s non-random contest could be a “clear violation” of the 1914 federal law against deceptive trade practices, which prohibits materially misleading statements to reasonable consumers. He said, “The claim that this is random is likely to cause consumers acting reasonably to believe it is random,” and added, “A chance to win a million dollars would matter to many consumers.” Sovern noted that, even if the FTC did take action, it would likely order America PAC to end the offer, which was already scheduled to conclude shortly.

Sovern also speculated that privacy concerns could draw FTC attention, as it has become the government’s primary privacy enforcement body.


Read more👇👇

Bottom Republicans miss fewer hits on luxury costs as Decision Night retreats