Elon Musk has been ordered to answer questions in cases accusing him of defrauding swing-state voters with a promise of million-dollar giveaways ahead of the 2024 election.
The CEO of SpaceX and Tesla Inc. tried to avoid being deposed in the pair of cases filed in federal court in Austin.
On Tuesday, though, U.S.
Magistrate Judge Susan Hightower ordered him to sit for the deposition and to produce unredacted versions of documents related to his America PAC, which backed Donald Trump.
Musk was accused of fraud after it turned out the “winners” in his voter lottery were not randomly selected as he claimed they would be.
The two potential class-action lawsuits allege voters were induced by Musk and his political action committee to provide their personal information under fraudulent pretenses.
Instead of being entered in a drawing for the chance to win $1 million as Musk promised, Joy Harvick and Jacqueline McAferty, both of Arizona, say they had no chance of winning.
The cases stem from a program Musk announced in October 2024 at a Pennsylvania town hall, saying those who signed a pledge and provided contact information could be randomly selected to win.
“We’re going to be awarding a million dollars to – randomly – to people who have signed the petition, every day from now until the election,” Musk told the crowd and later posted on X.
But the 18 people handed $1 million each weren’t picked at random.
Rather, they were selected because they’d be good spokespeople for the conservative political action committee.
In a February deposition, America PAC Director Chris Young said the giveaway was “no sweepstakes” and had “no winners.”
Now, attorneys for Musk and America PAC argue they weren’t promising a random drawing, but instead the opportunity for registered entrants to earn the money if selected as spokespeople for the PAC.
Musk’s attorneys unsuccessfully argued to keep him out of the proceedings.
They said attorneys for Harvick and McAferty failed to request the deposition before discovery deadlines and that Musk did not have information that would be useful, as he was not a leader of America PAC, just a celebrity spokesperson and donor.
In some instances, Musk’s attorneys were arguing against what he has already stated in court filings in which the Texas tech mogul said he helped found America PAC, helped form its mission and was its chief funder.
“We fail to see how the testimony of Mr. Musk would lead to general disputes of material fact,” Nadin Linthorst, an attorney defending Musk in the McAferty case, said in court.
The judge, though, pointed out that his name also appeared as the signer on some of the large novelty checks used in the alleged giveaway.
And, given Musk’s responses in documents that he helped form the group, she said there is a likelihood he holds unique information the plaintiffs could get nowhere else.
Defense attorneys were also ordered to reproduce hundreds of pages of documents that were already turned over but were so heavily redacted as to be unclear.
Hightower said local rules largely disallow redacting documenTS.
The hearing also established new scheduling deadlines, which are needed because arguments over discovery have delayed several already agreed-upon dates.
It wasn’t immediately clear when Musk will sit for a deposition.
Hightower also heard arguments from Musk’s attorneys regarding summary judgment in the McAferty case.
They argued there was no fraud as there was no real agreement and that she suffered no damages because the information she gave was of no value.
Musk attorney Nadin Rabelo Linthorst compared the personal data McAferty gave to the type of information gained by signing up for a newsletter.
McAferty attorney Jarett Ellzey, though, argued a $47 incentive offered to some for registering and referring people to America PAC was enough to establish the information had value.
Linthorst also argued the case against Musk should be dismissed because he was merely a spokesperson and a donor.
Hightower declined to rule on the summary judgment Tuesday, taking the motions under advisement.
A motion for summary judgment in Harvick’s case will be decided by Judge Robert Pitman.
