Elon Musk promised ‘random’ $1M giveaways. Now he’s fighting to avoid testifying.

Elon Musk, billionaire entrepreneur and Mars enthusiast, may be able to add another title to his resume: deposition dodger. 

The CEO of Tesla Inc. and SpaceX is refusing to answer questions under oath about his involvement in a series of million-dollar giveaways to voters in swing states ahead of the 2024 election, according to filings in two cases in federal court in Austin.

Musk was accused of fraud after it turned out the “winners” were not randomly selected, as Musk had claimed they would be.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs have asked a judge to force the billionaire to sit for a deposition and require the Musk-founded political action committee that distributed the money to release unredacted documents, part of their bid to learn more about the program. 

Musk announced it in October 2024 at a Pennsylvania town hall with his Trump-aligned political action committee America PAC, saying that people who signed a pledge to support the Constitution — especially on freedom of speech and the right to bear arms — and turned over their contact information would 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 he picked the recipients based on a series of criteria and that the giveaway was “no sweepstakes” and had “no winners.” 

Potential class action

A similar case filed in Michigan was dismissed last year but the two potential class action suits in U.S. District Court in Austin continue — and attorneys in those cases say Musk’s attorneys are dragging their feet hoping a judge throws out the suits before he can be forced to answer questions under oath. 

“This is about basic fairness and the integrity of the process,” attorney Jarrett Ellzey said in an emailed response to questions. “If you want the Court to consider your argument, you have to be willing to stand behind it under oath.”

Ellzey represents Arizona resident Jacqueline McAferty, who filed suit in November 2024. 

She and Joy Harvick, the plaintiff in the other case filed in Austin, say they were defrauded and convinced by false claims to give up personal contact information so Musk and America PAC could create a valuable list of swing-state voters.

Such a list’s value is illustrated by the fact America PAC committed to paying at least $47 per referral to its petition supporting the First and Second amendments. Depending on how large it grew, they could have spent millions. The PAC and Musk were sued last year in Pennsylvania over allegations it didn't make those payments.

In Austin, the two cases are being argued separately but with identical fights for documents and a Musk deposition. They have offered to work in concert on the deposition to streamline the process. 

Attorneys for Musk and the PAC are pushing for summary judgment on multiple grounds, saying the plaintiffs lack standing, that no false statements were made, there was no contract and Musk’s statements were protected speech. 

Musk’s attorneys argue McAferty and Harvick had plenty of time to request the deposition and failed to do so before the end of one phase of discovery. 

“Any request to depose Mr. Musk at this stage … is therefore untimely,” Musk’s attorneys say in a filing.

But the plaintiffs’ attorneys say the request Musk’s attorneys reference wasn’t the first time they’d asked to schedule a deposition and that they always intended to interview him as a named defendant. Downplaying Musk’s role, his attorneys say PAC Director Young has all the answers plaintiffs could need: he selected the winners and the criteria. 

Elon Musk’s role

But Musk was a critical part of the group, McAferty and Harvick argue.

Musk’s attorneys acknowledged in written responses to questions filed with the court that he had helped design the Trump-aligned PAC, its branding and core beliefs. He funded and helped found the Austin-based political action committee in May 2024. 

“Mr. Musk has participated in high-level discussions about America PAC’s programs and has provided high-level strategic input,” his attorneys said.

Though the PAC does not explicitly identify Trump as its candidate of choice, its stated goals aligned closely with planks from the Trump platform.

Musk also was the person who publicly announced the giveaway, the money and called the selection random. 

In addition to fighting to have him sit down for direct questioning in a deposition, the plaintiffs want more unredacted documents.

Defendants turned over at least 900 pages in one tranche of many. But several were redacted, marked only “non-responsive,” and plaintiffs want to see what Musk's attorneys blacked out. It isn’t clear from filings how many documents are affected. 

Ultimately, U.S. Magistrate Judge Susan Hightower will decide whether discovery will continue and whether Musk will be deposed in coming weeks. Decisions on summary judgment will be decided by U.S. District Judge Robert Pitman thereafter.