# McAferty v. Musk *McAferty v. Musk* is a proposed federal class action in Austin, Texas, by Jacqueline McAferty, an Arizona voter who signed [[America PAC]]'s swing-state petition in October 2024. She says [[Elon Musk]] and the PAC got her personal information with a promise that $1 million winners would be picked "randomly," when they were in fact chosen in advance. It is the case that turned the [[America PAC $1 Million Petition Sweepstakes]] from a closed election-law story into an open fraud case. It is still pending, and Musk has been ordered to testify under oath. A companion proposed class action by another Arizona voter, Joy Harvick, is proceeding alongside it before the same court. ## Claims Filed in November 2024, days after the election, the complaint alleges **fraud**, **breach of contract**, and violation of the **Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act**. The core allegation: signers "provided their personal identifying information to Defendants for nothing in exchange," having "now discovered no legitimate lottery existed." It asks for damages, a jury trial, and an order that the PAC **destroy the personal data it collected**. The evidence came from America PAC's own mouth. At the November 4, 2024 hearing in Larry Krasner's Philadelphia case, the PAC's lawyer said "we know exactly who will be announced as the $1 million recipient today and tomorrow," and its director testified the winners "were not chosen by random chance." That testimony is what the Texas plaintiffs sued on. ## Rulings - **August 20, 2025: motion to dismiss.** Judge Robert Pitman let the **fraud** and **breach-of-contract** claims go forward and dismissed the Texas consumer-protection claim. America PAC had argued that pre-selected winners could still be "random." The court rejected that, reading "randomly" in its ordinary sense of "lacking a definite plan, purpose, or pattern." It found it "plausible that [plaintiff] would rely on Musk's assertion that $1 million would be given out randomly." - **June 2026: Musk ordered to testify.** Magistrate Judge Susan Hightower ordered Musk to answer questions under oath in both the McAferty and Harvick cases. She also recommended narrowing McAferty's case to fraud, dismissing the contract claim. On fraud, she wrote it was "an open question whether Musk acted recklessly." Judge Pitman reviews the recommendations. The record now includes testimony from America PAC director Christopher Young that he was "surprised" by Musk's word choice: "It was not the way that we had — you know, with legal counsel and consultation, discussed the program." The plaintiffs say 18 winners were announced across the seven swing states, all selected rather than drawn. ## Why it matters **The defense that won in Philadelphia is the evidence in Texas.** America PAC beat the illegal-lottery charge in November 2024 by telling a court the prize involved no chance. That admission is now the factual core of a fraud case. The PAC's lawyers had designed the program as paid spokesperson contracts, according to their director. Musk described it on stage as a random drawing. The gap between the two is Musk's personal exposure, which is why his deposition is the contested point. **The remedy targets the data.** The plaintiffs ask for money, but also for destruction of the voter data the petition collected. That is the part of the program that outlived the election (see the votesafe.org section of [[America PAC]]). ## See Also - [[America PAC $1 Million Petition Sweepstakes]] — the program, the DOJ letter, Krasner's suit and the Wisconsin sequel - [[America PAC Timeline]] - [[America PAC]] · [[Elon Musk]] - [[Musk Companies Labor Litigation]] — the parallel record of employment suits against Musk's companies