America PAC's $1 Million Giveaway Suits: Settled, Terms Not Public

On October 15, 2026, the parties in a proposed class action over America PAC’s 2024 daily $1 million giveaway told a federal judge in Austin that they had reached a settlement. The notice this desk opened does not include the terms. It asks the court to pause the case. A notice of settlement is not a finding of liability, and it is not an admission.

This page is the receipt. It sits on the lawsuits desk. The 2026 America PAC money, which is a different record, is on the September filings page.

What the Harvick notice says

The document is a three-page notice of settlement and request for a stay, Document 65 in Harvick v. Musk, No. 1:24-cv-01373-RP, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, Austin Division. The footer says it was filed October 15, 2026. The certificate of service says the same date, via CM/ECF.

Plaintiff Joy Harvick, “individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,” and defendants “Elon Reeve Musk and America PAC” say the parties “have reached a Settlement” and ask the court to vacate all deadlines and stay the case for thirty days “to allow the Parties to finalize and execute the settlement agreement and file a Motion for Preliminary Approval.” Counsel for the plaintiff and the putative class, and counsel for the defendants, both signed.

The notice calls 1:24-cv-1346 a related case. It does not name the plaintiff in that case, and it does not attach terms, a claim form, or a payment figure.

Label: Confirmed as the text of that notice. The stay is a request. This desk has not seen an order granting it. “Putative class” is the signature block’s phrase. A class is not certified by this document.

Justia’s public docket report for Harvick lists a complaint filed November 11, 2024, nature of suit “Other Fraud,” cause “28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract,” jury demanded by the plaintiff, defendants Elon Musk and America PAC, presiding judge Robert Pitman. The report this desk retrieved stops at the November 11 opening entries. It does not list Document 65. The court’s own page names Robert Pitman as a U.S. District Judge in Austin. The “-RP” on the caption matches those initials.

Label: The opening record is Justia’s. The October 15 notice is the PDF. Justia’s free report is not a full docket.

What the wire accounts add about both cases

Reuters, via Investing.com (Mike Scarcella, dateline Washington, October 15, 2026), says the plaintiffs, Mr. Musk, and America PAC told the judge they had reached settlements subject to court approval, that the filings did not include settlement terms, and that the defendants denied the allegations. Reuters describes two proposed class actions by Arizona residents, who said voters in seven swing states were misled into signing a petition to support the U.S. Constitution by a promise of $1 million a day to randomly selected signatories. Reuters also says a federal judge in June said Mr. Musk must testify.

Bloomberg Law (Isaiah Poritz, October 15, 2026) says settlement notices in both cases were docketed that day and did not provide the terms. It says the judge must approve the settlements. It spells the judge “Pittman.” The court page and Justia spell the name Pitman. Bloomberg names the second plaintiff as Jacqueline McAferty and cites McAferty v. Musk, No. 1:24-cv-01346, with the same October 15, 2026 date it gives Harvick. That is the related-case number on the Harvick notice, written there as 1:24-cv-1346.

Bloomberg says the proposed class actions are from two Arizona voters who said they would not have signed the petition or handed over personal information if they had known the winners were not picked at random. It says the settlement lets Mr. Musk avert a deposition after the court denied his objections to being questioned. Label: Reported by Bloomberg Law. The deposition sentence is not in the notice this desk read.

Label for the pair of stories: Reported. Reuters is the source for “defendants denied the allegations.” The notice does not contain that sentence. Neither story, and not the notice, includes a claim form or a dollar amount. Absence from those three is what this desk can say. It is not proof that no term sheet exists in a filing this desk did not open.

CourtListener’s public pages for Harvick and McAferty returned 403 on October 18, 2026. They are not a source for any date or order on this page.

The 2024 Philadelphia case is a different lawsuit

The federal notices are not the Philadelphia case.

Business Insider (Laura Italiano, November 13, 2024) reported a written decision by Judge Angelo Foglietta of the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, after Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner sued over the giveaway as an illegal lottery. As Business Insider quotes the decision, a lottery under Pennsylvania law needs a prize, a payment for a chance to win, and winners chosen at random. The judge wrote that participants did not pay, were carefully selected, and received the $1 million as compensation for working with the PAC. Business Insider quotes this sentence from the opinion: “Credible testimony also established that those selected were not determined by chance and Petitioner agreed that a lack of random selection is not a lottery.”

Label: Reported by Business Insider, including the quotation it attributes to the opinion. A scan of the opinion PDF on the Pennsylvania courts site did not yield extractable text, so this desk is not transcribing that file. Bloomberg’s phrase for the same background is that, in separate litigation, the lawyers said the PAC picked swing-state voters who would be good public spokespeople. The Philadelphia ruling Business Insider describes is a 2024 decision not to treat the program as a lottery. It is not a judgment in Harvick or McAferty, and it is not the settlement.

What to watch next

1. A motion for preliminary approval. That is the filing the Harvick notice says the parties still have to write.
2. Whether the court enters the 30-day stay the notice requests. The PDF is the request, not the order.
3. Terms, a claim form, or a payment figure, if a later public filing actually contains them. None of the documents opened here does.
4. Court approval. Reuters and Bloomberg Law both say the settlement needs it. Approval would still not, by itself, be a finding that the petition was or was not a lottery.

On the map

America PAC’s reported receipts for the quarter that ended September 30, 2026, are on the midterm filings page. That page is FEC lines. This one is a pair of 2024 proposed class actions and a notice that terms are not in the public filing this desk read. The lawsuits hub is the section. The politics hub is the neighboring desk.

Sources

Checked October 18, 2026.

CourtListener returned 403 for both docket URLs. The Pennsylvania opinion PDF was an image scan and was not transcribed.