Elon Musk Sued in Class Action After Failing to Pay Voters $100 as Promised During 2024 Election Push

In a striking escalation of legal troubles surrounding tech billionaire Elon Musk’s political maneuvers, a proposed federal class action lawsuit has accused Musk’s America PAC of failing to fulfill its high-profile promises to voters in seven crucial swing states during the 2024 U.S. presidential election. The complaint, filed in a Philadelphia federal court on May 8, asserts that Musk’s political action committee offered $100 payments to registered voters in return for signing a petition backing constitutional values—only to break that promise after Trump’s victory.

The three named plaintiffs from Pennsylvania, Nevada, and Georgia allege they were cheated out of their expected compensation and are now seeking justice not just for themselves but for a class that may include hundreds or even thousands of others.

This lawsuit shines an unflattering spotlight on Musk’s deeply controversial role in the 2024 election, during which he poured an estimated $300 million into efforts to secure a Republican victory and personally rallied for Donald Trump, who ultimately defeated Democratic candidate and Vice President Kamala Harris. The America PAC, created by Musk as a vehicle to influence political outcomes under the guise of promoting First and Second Amendment protections, promised monetary rewards to citizens willing to sign its online petition.

Initially offering $47 per signer and then increasing that figure to $100, the campaign also dangled referral bonuses and, in its most headline-grabbing stunt, pledged daily $1 million lottery giveaways to participants.

According to the complaint, these promises created a contractual expectation that was never fulfilled. Voters, especially in battleground states like Pennsylvania and Georgia, were encouraged to sign on and refer others, believing they would receive the agreed-upon compensation. But the lawsuit alleges the payments never arrived for many, if not most, of those who participated.

The plaintiffs’ legal team, the law firm Lichten & Liss-Riordan, estimates that the number of unpaid individuals may exceed 100 and that the total unpaid compensation could surpass $5,000,000. “This case is about a broken promise,” said firm co-founder Shannon Liss-Riordan. “Our clients believed in Elon Musk and acted on that belief. But the promise was not kept.”

The implications of this lawsuit extend well beyond the payment dispute. Legal experts are now raising red flags about the possible violation of federal election laws. Critics argue that Musk’s PAC effectively created a pay-for-participation scheme in key states, blurring the line between incentivized civic engagement and potential voter manipulation.

Offering direct cash rewards in exchange for political participation—even if framed as support for constitutional principles—could invite scrutiny from the Department of Justice and the Federal Election Commission, both of which have jurisdiction over election conduct and campaign finance regulations.

What’s particularly troubling to watchdog groups is the manner in which the America PAC operated its so-called civic initiatives. The sudden shift from a $47 payment to a $100 offer weeks before Election Day, the addition of lottery-style million-dollar prize draws, and the focus on swing states all suggest a targeted effort to mobilize voters in favor of Musk’s political goals under questionable ethical and legal conditions.

While the PAC has maintained that its campaign was about “freedom of speech” and “American values,” critics note that the timing and structure of the rewards raise suspicions of voter inducement.

Adding to the storm, Musk has not publicly responded to the suit, nor has his America PAC. In previous statements, the PAC has claimed that it had already disbursed “tens of millions of dollars” to canvassers and petition signers, signaling that the payment issue was limited or isolated. However, the mounting legal challenges tell a different story. A separate class action lawsuit is already underway, alleging that the $1 million daily lottery was in fact fraudulent.

If both cases proceed, Musk could find himself battling dual legal fronts—each questioning his honesty, his leadership, and his influence over American politics.

Notably, this is not the first time Musk has faced accusations of failing to honor compensation promises. The same law firm representing the America PAC plaintiffs is also handling claims from more than 2,000 former Twitter employees who were allegedly misled about severance packages after Musk’s 2022 acquisition of the platform.

The pattern, critics say, is becoming increasingly clear: Musk makes sweeping financial commitments to generate headlines or loyalty—and then, allegedly, fails to follow through.

For Musk, the stakes are not just financial but reputational. After being appointed by Trump to lead the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) following the 2024 election, Musk’s influence in Washington expanded rapidly.

Under his leadership, DOGE aggressively pursued deregulatory policies that slashed funding to key agencies, many of which oversee industries tied directly to Musk’s business empire—such as the Department of Transportation, which regulates Tesla, and NASA, a key partner for SpaceX. 

The convergence of Musk’s political appointments, government restructuring efforts, and private business interests has prompted widespread criticism and calls for ethics investigations.

At a pro-Trump town hall in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania last October, Musk seemed to brush off concerns, calling the voter reward program “kind of fun” and “a good use of money.” But with lawsuits now unfolding and class action claims stacking up, the financial risks for Musk and his PAC could balloon.

Analysts warn that if courts find the petition payments constituted contractual obligations or illegal inducements, Musk’s legal exposure could easily exceed $100 million in damages, especially if penalties for election law violations are added.

Meanwhile, the broader political community is watching closely. Democrats have already seized on the lawsuit to demand investigations and legislative reforms to prevent what they call “tech billionaire manipulation of democracy.”

Republicans, while more cautious, have largely refrained from defending Musk publicly, wary of the potential fallout should the legal battles intensify. Civil rights groups, including those focused on voter integrity, argue that Musk’s behavior—particularly the offer of direct cash payments in return for election-related activity—could set a dangerous precedent that undermines trust in the democratic process.

With the 2026 midterm elections already on the horizon, the outcome of this case may shape how future campaigns are financed and how far private interests can go in mobilizing voters. At its core, the lawsuit raises urgent questions about the commodification of political participation.

Can a billionaire offer cash in exchange for signatures and expect it to be seen purely as free speech? Or does such a move amount to the purchasing of influence on a national scale?

For Elon Musk, who has repeatedly styled himself as a visionary above politics, this moment could be a turning point. The class action lawsuit may not just be about broken promises—it may be about whether America’s wealthiest man has gone too far in attempting to remake its political landscape.