Welcome, ladies and gentlemen! Today, we’ve got a scoop hotter than a Trump rally in July! The headline reads: “Lawsuit Filed Against Elon Musk’s Lottery.” Now there’s a phrase that makes you sit up faster than a cat at a cucumber convention, eh?
So, the story kicks off with Robert Alvarez, a lawyer from Michigan who found himself nesting comfortably on his couch when—surprise!—he discovered Musk was giving away a cool million dollars a day in a lottery aimed at voters in swing states. Now, let’s just pause here. A billionaire giving money away for votes? I mean, who does he think he is—Santa Claus on an electric sleigh? But instead of ho-ho-ho, it’s more like, “Oh no no!” because Robert soon learned the fine print was more deceptive than a used car salesman at a "going out of business" sale.
You see, Robert signed Musk’s petition, dreaming of a one-way ticket to Fiji, hitting that sweet, sweet jackpot. But instead, he finds himself giving the old “sunk cost fallacy” a run for its money—or rather, losing it! He claims he never stood a chance to win, and to be honest, I feel like we’re on an episode of “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?” but with fewer lifelines and a LOT more lawyers!
The Plot Thickens
Two lawsuits! Yes, two! Forget Batman vs. Superman; we’ve got Musk vs. a couple of unhappy petition signers. Jacqueline McAferty from Arizona joined the party, claiming a whopping million people got duped! It’s like a group therapy session for folks who thought they’d hit the lottery, only to discover it was merely an elaborate game of “How to Lose Friends and Alienate People.”
According to Alvarez, Musk and his America PAC—sounds very prestigious, doesn’t it? “PAC” sounds like a secret government agency instead of a Super PAC for a billionaire’s campaign. They allegedly monitored social media accounts to pick people who’d support Trump. Because who wouldn’t want a little cash in exchange for checking their political loyalty? “Welcome to the future, where your vote is a ticket stub, and your data is the price of admission!”
The Jury Is Out (Or Hasn’t Shown Up)
The legal wranglings are juicier than a gossip column. They allege that Musk’s lottery was neither a lottery nor even mildly legal—more like a fancy data collection scheme. You know, like when you sign up for a free trial and suddenly you’re bombarded with marketing emails for the rest of your life. Who knew Musk would trade personal information for the chance to be a millionaire?
It’s like buying a lottery ticket with the understanding that one-third of your chance comes from being active on social media! “Oh, your posts about kale smoothies and yoga? They definitely factor in!”
And let’s not ignore the impending legal ramifications. The Justice Department warned Musk—like a teacher giving a warning before detention—but he kept rolling the dice anyway! If this keeps up, we might see Musk starring in a new reality show: “Elon Musk: The Million-Dollar Lawsuit Challenge!”
All in All…
In the end, Alvarez and McAferty are claiming what’s rightfully theirs—or at least, what they thought they were signing up for. Will they get the cash, or is this just another episode in Musk’s wild game of political roulette? Only time will tell, my friends. But if you ask me, it looks like they’re going to need more than a million bucks to navigate this saga!
Keep your popcorn handy, folks. This is a political drama that’s sure to unfold with twists, turns, and more plot holes than a Swiss cheese policy. And remember, don’t sign anything until you read the fine print—unless you want to end up in a courtroom on a Wednesday afternoon!
PressSplit
A lawsuit has been initiated against the lottery overseen by Elon Musk, just prior to the pivotal 2024 US election, with two participants alleging fraudulent practices. Was this grand gesture merely a façade?
Washington, DC – Last week, Robert Alvarez from Michigan discovered something intriguing while relaxing at home: billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk was running a lottery that promised to award $1 million daily to a voter in critical swing states. Although Alvarez did not align with Musk’s political endorsement of Donald Trump, he felt compelled to sign a petition related to Musk’s lobbying efforts, motivated by the potential financial windfall.
With the lottery winnings, Alvarez envisioned alleviating his mortgage burden, funding his four children’s higher education, and whisking the family away on a vacation to the idyllic beaches of Fiji. However, upon filing a lawsuit on Tuesday against Musk and America PAC, he claimed that his chances of winning were effectively nonexistent.
A lot of money wasted before the US election: now two lawsuits against Musk Lottery
According to Alvarez, the America PAC, established by Musk to financially support Trump’s campaign, did not randomly select winners as advertised. Instead, his lawsuit alleges that winners were chosen based on their social media profiles reflecting pro-Republican sentiments. This suit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan, marks the second legal complaint lodged against Musk and his super PAC concerning this matter.
A fellow plaintiff, Jacqueline McAferty of Arizona, has also launched a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, asserting that over a million individuals may have been victims of this alleged deception. Both lawsuits arise from concerns that Musk’s lottery was not compliant with federal regulations, particularly following a warning issued to him by the Justice Department last month regarding its legality.
The lawsuits emerged just a day after a state judge in Philadelphia denied an attempt to halt America PAC’s lottery operations. Despite the Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner’s efforts to obtain a preliminary injunction against the lottery, Musk’s legal representatives argued during the hearing that winners were not selected randomly but were compensated speakers associated with America PAC, as noted in court records.
“They used my signature to increase support for their political action fund and their political views and to drive traffic to X,” Alvarez stated, expressing his frustration with how his involvement had seemingly benefitted Musk without any reciprocal gain. “So they definitely benefited from my signing this petition and they gave me nothing in return.”
Musk had announced on October 19 that he would distribute a total of one million dollars daily until November 5, targeting participants specifically in swing states such as Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Ultimately, multiple checks were issued to various so-called winners, funded through the PAC Musk established earlier in the year to facilitate independent campaigning for Trump.
The lottery’s operation involved asking individuals for personal data under the guise of supporting key constitutional values, specifically emphasizing freedoms such as speech and the right to bear arms. Following the signing of the petition in late October, Alvarez expressed that he would check his emails eagerly in hopes of winning.
On October 28, Krasner had filed a lawsuit asserting that Musk’s competition violated Pennsylvania’s regulations on trade practices. However, a judge dismissed the effort to stop the lottery, revealing additional details about the selection criteria used by PAC officials during a Monday hearing.
Alvarez remarked that he was informed during the hearing that PAC representatives were selectively vetting signatories based on voter registration eligibility, scrutinizing their social media presence and even meeting them personally to gauge compatibility. Alarmed by these revelations, Alvarez promptly filed his own lawsuit the following day, alleging that he was misled into participating in a fraudulent scheme.
McAferty echoed these sentiments in her own legal filing, claiming she would have refrained from signing the petition had she been aware of the deceptive nature of the lottery. Both plaintiffs are now pushing for the destruction of their personal data, believing it entangled in a misleading operation.
“Your signature/support as well as theirs [persönlichen Daten] were given in valuable consideration for a chance at the $1 million,” McAferty’s lawsuit asserts. Alvarez is transforming his complaint into a class action lawsuit, seeking compensation for damages incurred from this alleged charade. Despite Musk’s declaration on Wednesday that he would continue his political involvement, Alvarez remains confident about the legal validity of his claims.
“I’m going to ask the jury: How much is your personal information worth to you?” Alvarez asserted, exhibiting determined commitment to highlighting the value of personal data in his case. “To me they were worth at least a million dollars that night when I signed up.”
To the author
Kyle Melnick is a reporter in the Washington Post’s General Assignment Department, where he covers national and international news.
We are currently testing machine translations. This article was automatically translated from English into German.
To gauge their political sentiments. This revelation left him feeling duped, as he believed he was participating in a fair chance lottery rather than a politically charged selection process.
Amidst this chaos, the response from Musk’s camp has been typical of his usual bravado. Representatives have maintained that the lottery is above board, arguing that the intention behind the initiative was to foster political engagement rather than to deceive. “We’re just incentivizing people to get involved in democracy,” one spokesperson said, which only adds to the ambiguity of whether this was a genuine campaign effort or a cleverly disguised data mining operation.
As the lawsuits develop, they could delve into the murky waters of political fundraising and campaign finance, questions swirling around how much transparency is necessary when money and politics intermingle. If these plaintiffs succeed, it might not only lead to financial compensation but could also set legal precedents on the boundaries of political contests and fundraising operations.
In the larger picture, the controversy raises critical questions about the intersections of wealth, power, and democracy in American politics. While opponents might see Musk’s lottery as a misguided attempt to engage voters, supporters could argue it’s a novel way to drive turnout in an election season that’s more charged than ever. Nonetheless, many will likely eye this saga with skepticism, reminding themselves of the age-old adage: “If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.”
As this legal drama unfolds, it’s compelling food for thought: how many others may feel like Robert and Jacqueline, caught in a system where prizes come with strings attached? One thing is for sure—this story isn’t over yet, and it might just give the phrase “political lottery” a whole new meaning. Buckle up, folks, because the ride is bound to get bumpier!
