Posted on: November 15, 2024, 07:38h.
Last updated on: November 15, 2024, 07:38h.
Elon Musk’s controversial scheme to award $1 million per day to voters in key swing states in the lead up to the U.S. presidential election was not a lottery, a judge in Philadelphia has determined.
Judge Angelo Foglietta of Philadelphia’s Court of Common Pleas declined to halt the program at a hearing the day before the election. Philadelphia DA Larry Krasner had sued Musk and his pro-Trump super PAC, America PAC, for running an illegal lottery.
In a written decision, published this week, Foglietta determined that the campaign failed to meet any of the three criteria to qualify for a lottery under Pennsylvania law: a payment, a prize, and a random chance to win.
No Chance
Musk and America PAC had claimed that a winner would be chosen at random from a list of swing-state voters who signed a petition in support of free speech and gun rights. But during court proceedings, lawyers for the defendants admitted that winners were not random.
Instead, they were carefully selected and received the $1 million as compensation for working with the PAC, not as a lottery prize.
Those selected to earn the one million dollars were selected by the organization in a multi-step process that involved looking at their public posts on social media and meeting them in person before the town hall events to make sure their personality would be a good fit for the role,” the judge wrote.
Of Krasner’s additional complaint – that signatories to the petition were being “scammed for their information” – Foglietta wrote that the DA has provided no evidence of this beyond mere speculation.
He also considered the entire issue somewhat moot because the hearing was held the day before the election and America PAC had decided that no one from Pennsylvania would win the final prize.
Class-Action Suit
Musk and America PAC are facing a class-action lawsuit brought by an Arizona resident who signed the petition believing she had a shot at the prize. The plaintiff claims fraud and breach of contract.
Had Plaintiff been aware that she had no chance of receiving $1,000,000, she would not have signed or supported the America PAC petition and would not have provided her [personal data] to Defendants,” the filing reads. “Her signature/support, as well as her [personal data] were given as valuable consideration for a chance to receive the $1,000,000.”
The complaint also notes that America PAC’s petition “places no limitations on America PAC’s use of or sale of the personal data it collects, nor does it provide any additional information about the planned use of data.”
