Judge shoots down Philly DA Larry Krasner’s suit against Elon Musk’s $1 million giveaways to registered voters

A Philadelphia judge on Monday rejected District Attorney Larry Krasner’s bid to classify Elon Musk daily $1 million giveaway to voters in battleground states as an illegal lottery that violates Pennsylvania consumer protection laws.

In a one-page order issued after a daylong hearing, Common Pleas Court Judge Angelo Foglietta denied Krasner’s request for an injunction preventing the tech billionaire and his America PAC from continuing to operate in Pennsylvania.

The judge did not immediately elaborate on the reasons for his decision, saying he intended to release a more detailed opinion soon elaborating on his ruling.

Earlier in the day, attorneys for Musk argued that the prizes he had awarded were not a lottery and its winners were not chosen by chance.

Instead, they maintained the 17 winners so far were selected from among the pool of registered voters who signed a petition launched by his America PAC and screened for specific characteristics including their backgrounds, personal stories, and “suitability” for serving as a “spokesperson” for Musk’s political organization. One PAC representative described the process as equivalent to a job application — with winners becoming paid employees afterward.

“There is no ‘prize’ to be won,” Musk attorney Chris Gober said at the start of a hearing before Foglietta, “Instead recipients must fulfill contractual obligations to serve as spokesperson for the PAC.”

The revelation seemed to stun Krasner and his attorneys. One of them, John Summers, called the new description of the contest a “bombshell” — one that he said Musk and the PAC had kept secret even while suggesting that any entrant had a chance of being randomly selected as a winner.

“This was a profound, devastating, and widespread deception,” Summers said. “If their story is true … that they vetted [winners] and it wasn’t actually chance, it’s one of the great scams of the last 50 years.”

Dustin Slaughter, a spokesperson for Krasner’s office, said after Foglietta rejected the district attorney’s request: “A lot of truth came out in court today, and it was jaw-dropping. Stay tuned.”

The judge’s decision and the hearing that preceded it came a week after Krasner filed his suit and followed an unsuccessful effort by Musk’s attorneys to move the case to federal court. Those delays meant that Krasner’s attempt to bar Musk from running his contest in Pennsylvania did not get its first substantial court hearing until the day before Election Day.

Musk’s PAC has said on its website that it plans to issue just one more $1 million award on Tuesday — and that it will go to a registered voter in Michigan.

So even if Krasner had succeeded in convincing Foglietta that the sweepstakes violated local law, his victory would not have prevented any future payouts in Pennsylvania.

That did not stop Krasner from attempting to persuade Foglietta to issue the injunction. During more than two hours on the stand, Krasner asserted that Musk’s giveaway was, indeed, a lottery — or at least that it was marketed that way to entice participants.

As an example, Krasner pointed to a video of the sweepstakes’ first winner, John Dreher, whom Musk surprised with an oversize check at a Harrisburg rally last month. Krasner suggested it was unrealistic to believe that Dreher would have understood the unexpected windfall was part of an agreement to serve as a PAC spokesperson.

“This has been a grift from the beginning,” Krasner said. “This has been a scam from the beginning.”

Krasner’s attorneys also sought to point out that Musk and posts made by his PAC on his social media platform, X, had advanced the notion that the contest was random.

On Oct. 19, for example, one post said: “BREAKING: Elon Musk announces that he will be randomly awarding $1 MILLION every day from now until Election Day to registered Pennsylvania voters who sign America PAC’s petition and surprised a member of the audience as the first winner.”

Musk, in announcing the giveaway at a Harrisburg rally that same day, said: “We’re going to be awarding a million dollars — randomly — to people who have signed the petition every day from now until the election.” Though he later added during his speech that winners would be required to serve as spokespersons for the PAC.

One of Musk’s lawyers, Chris Gober, acknowledged that Musk used the word “randomly” in his speech. But he said that was not meant to suggest that winners’ names would be drawn from a blind pool, as occurs in a lottery or other game of chance — but that the method for choosing winners would be random because it wasn’t going to follow any predetermined pattern or criteria.

Another pro-Musk witness — Chris Young, the treasurer of America PAC — testified that he and a committee of employees at the PAC conducted research on all potential sweepstakes winners before the checks were written, and that winners went on to perform actions on behalf of the PAC, making their checks more like compensation than an award. He also said they signed the equivalent of a consulting agreement after being selected, which he said supported the notion that they were being paid for services.

“The opportunity to earn … is different than a chance to win,” Young said.

Krasner rejected that argument and Musk’s claim that the giveaway wasn’t a lottery as “obviously false.”

“It’s about the most amazingly disingenuous defense I’ve heard in recent times,” the district attorney said on the stand. “It’s absurd.”

Musk did not show up for Monday’s proceedings. In court papers filed Friday afternoon, his attorneys said he “is subject to an incredible number of time commitments that involve careful planning and preclude last-minute changes in the days leading up to a major federal presidential election.”

A top surrogate for Republican nominee Donald Trump, Musk has cast the giveaway as a way to drive up GOP voter registration numbers in states that might decide the election.