Elon Musk's $1 million a day giveaway to US voters was allowed to continue after a Pennsylvania state judge refused to stop the sweepstakes. Musk had given the money to people in several key swing states who had signed a petition supporting the First and Second Amendments.

On Monday evening, Judge Angelo Foglietta of the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas denied a request from Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner to issue a temporary restraining order against Musk. Krasner had sought an immediate end to the giveaways, arguing that they violated the Keystone State's lottery and consumer protection laws. The New York Times reported.

However, Musk's legal team countered that the giveaways were not a lottery but rather a promotion because the winners were not selected “at random,” despite the tech entrepreneur's description of the program, including on where it was described as “a daily chance” of who could win the money.

“The primary legal issue revolves around the characterization of the $1 million daily donation. Elon Musk was quoted as saying, 'We're going to give away a million dollars every day from now until the election to people who sign the petition.'” “That suggests that everyone who signs the petition has a daily chance has to win a million dollars,” said Craig Barkacs, a professor of business law and ethics in the MBA program at the Knauss School of Business at the University of San Diego.

This could be read to the public that everyone has an equal chance of winning.

“However, recent testimony from Chris Young, America PAC's director and treasurer, shows that 'winning' recipients are pre-screened to ensure their values ​​align with the group,” Barkacs added.

Electoral promotion

Rather than a lottery, the petition and sweepstakes were simply a confusing way to promote a candidate — in this case, former President Donald Trump — in the run-up to the presidential election.

“Musk is a staunch supporter of Donald Trump, and the $1 million donation is aimed at voters in swing states and ends on Election Day,” Barkacs suggested. “The intent appears to be to drum up support for Trump, regardless of his wisdom or effectiveness.”

It could still lead to a lengthy legal review under state or federal law, a prospect that doesn't appear to worry Musk, Barkacs added.

“However, one must question the logic behind this approach,” he added. “It appears to be causing more trouble than it is worth and is unlikely to have a significant impact on the election. While it has attracted widespread attention, it is uncertain whether the excitement it generates outweighs the resentment it might provoke. “Ultimately, this doesn’t seem like a wise bet of $1 million a day until the election.”

Musk has already tried this

It should also be remembered that Musk had tried such expensive promotions before, including one that affected the original X.com.

“When Peter Thiel’s digital payments startup Confinity — a mix of “trust” and “infinity” — merged with its main competitor, Elon Musk’s X.com, they called the combined company PayPal,” said Rob Lalka, a professor at the Freeman School from Tulane University of Business and author of The Venture Alchemists: How Big Tech Turned Profits into Power.

The two would-be billionaires performed “growth hacking,” which Lalka said was “an early masterclass in customer acquisition.”

The newly merged PayPal offered each new user $5 for signing up and then offered $5 to $20 in referral bonuses for getting friends.

“They spent millions, but the company grew exponentially as a result,” Lalka noted. “At one point, PayPal was growing so quickly that its user base was growing by 10 percent every day.”

When America PAC offered $47 to $100 to registered voters in certain swing states and ran a $1 million-a-day sweepstakes, it was just another form of growth hacking.

“As we just learned, the winners were not selected at random but were hand-selected as paid speakers,” Lalka said. “The Philadelphia district attorney who sued Musk's PAC for illegal activities called it 'political marketing disguised as a lottery.'” But this tactic wasn't thought up overnight. The “growth hacking” that fueled PayPal’s explosive growth decades ago appears to have been turned into a headline-grabbing political strategy this year.

It should also be remembered that Musk has already paid $44 billion for Twitter, which he then renamed the new X.com. So for the richest man in the world, this is a small change in comparison.

“To put that in perspective, Elon Musk's net worth today is over $270 billion, so any check over $1 million represents less than 0.0004 percent of his wealth,” Lalka added. “For Musk, that’s about 71 cents for the average American household.”