Cards Against Humanity and SpaceX reached a confidential settlement in October 2025, resolving a high-profile lawsuit concerning trespassing allegations on South Texas land purchased by Cards Against Humanity in 2017 to protest border wall construction.
Key Developments in the Case
Admission of Trespass by SpaceX
During the discovery phase of the legal proceedings, SpaceX formally admitted to trespassing on the contested South Texas property. This marks a rare public acknowledgment of wrongdoing by the aerospace company founded by Elon Musk. The admission centered on unauthorized use of the land, including the storage of SpaceX equipment for a period exceeding six months.
Settlement Details
The October 2025 settlement includes confidential financial terms, despite the initial $15 million in damages sought by Cards Against Humanity. Both parties have agreed to strict non-disclosure provisions, limiting public insight into the specifics of the agreement.
Background of the Property Purchase
Cards Against Humanity acquired the disputed land in 2017 through a crowdfunding campaign involving 150,000 contributors. Each supporter contributed $15 toward the initiative, which aimed to resist the border wall planned during then-President Donald Trump’s administration.
Legal Strategy and Risks
Under Texas law, plaintiffs in property cases often face difficulty recovering attorney fees, even if they win. This created a significant financial risk for Cards Against Humanity, as legal costs could have outpaced potential awarded damages.
Terms of Resolution
In fulfillment of the settlement terms:
- SpaceX will remove all equipment from the South Texas property.
- Cards Against Humanity will undertake site restoration to return the land to its original condition.
- Supporters of the original crowdfunding campaign will receive a limited-edition, Musk-themed card pack as a nod to the outcome.
More Information
To learn more about the original project, you can visit the official Cards Against Humanity website.
SpaceX Admits to Trespassing, Settles for Undisclosed Amount
The legal battle between Cards Against Humanity and SpaceX concluded in October 2025 with a confidential settlement that brings closure to months of contentious litigation. Both companies reached an agreement that resolves all claims related to alleged trespassing and property damage in Cameron County, South Texas.
Admission During Discovery Process
SpaceX made a significant admission during the lawsuit’s discovery phase, acknowledging on the record that trespassing had occurred on Cards Against Humanity’s property. This admission marked a pivotal moment in the case, as it validated the core allegations that Cards Against Humanity had been pursuing since filing the lawsuit.
The discovery process revealed details about SpaceX’s activities on the disputed land, though the extent of the company’s admissions remains largely sealed under the settlement agreement. Elon Musk’s business ventures have faced various legal challenges in recent years, but this admission represents a rare instance where SpaceX formally acknowledged wrongdoing.
Confidential Settlement Terms
Neither company disclosed the financial terms of the settlement, despite Cards Against Humanity’s original demand for $15 million in damages. The settlement agreement includes strict confidentiality provisions that prevent both parties from discussing specific details publicly.
Cards Against Humanity had initially sought compensation for several key areas:
- Property restoration costs for damaged land
- Financial compensation for supporters who contributed to the land purchase
- Legal fees and associated litigation expenses
- Punitive damages for the alleged trespassing violations
The confidential nature of the settlement leaves questions about whether Cards Against Humanity received the full $15 million it originally demanded or if the final amount differed significantly. Industry observers note that confidential settlements often indicate compromise positions that both parties can accept without admitting broader liability.
SpaceX’s willingness to settle likely reflects a desire to avoid prolonged litigation that could interfere with its South Texas operations and Musk’s various business interests. The settlement allows both companies to move forward without the uncertainty and costs associated with a lengthy court battle.
The resolution comes at a time when SpaceX continues expanding its Starship development facility in the area, making clear property boundaries and neighborly relations increasingly important for the company’s long-term operations in Cameron County.
Six Months of Unauthorized Equipment Storage on Private Property
Cards Against Humanity’s legal complaint painted a picture of systematic trespassing that allegedly lasted over half a year. According to the game company’s filing, SpaceX treated their South Texas property as an extension of its own operations, using the land as an unauthorized storage facility for construction materials, debris, and heavy equipment associated with the nearby Starbase launch complex.
Scope of Alleged Property Damage
The damage claims extended far beyond simple trespassing accusations. Cards Against Humanity documented several specific impacts to their property, including the destruction of native vegetation that had been carefully preserved in its natural state. The company alleged that SpaceX workers dumped various materials on the site, including trash and gravel, fundamentally altering the landscape they had intentionally maintained as undeveloped land.
These allegations gained particular significance given Cards Against Humanity’s public stance on land preservation. The company had previously made headlines for unconventional property acquisitions, including their high-profile ventures that often blend business strategy with social commentary. Their South Texas property purchase was no exception, as they had deliberately kept the land in its natural state and posted clear “no trespassing” signage around the perimeter.
Legal Standing and Ownership Disputes
SpaceX’s response challenged Cards Against Humanity’s fundamental right to bring the lawsuit in the first place. The aerospace company disputed the game maker’s legal standing to sue, suggesting possible complications around property ownership or the validity of the claims themselves. This legal maneuver is common in property disputes where defendants question whether plaintiffs have sufficient connection to the allegedly damaged property to seek remedies.
The confusion over land ownership became a central theme in the dispute. Cards Against Humanity claimed that SpaceX’s unauthorized use of their property created potential brand reputation issues, suggesting that the public might associate the land use with the game company’s operations rather than recognizing it as trespassing. This concern reflects the broader challenges companies face when their property becomes entangled with high-profile operations like SpaceX’s rocket development program.
The proximity to SpaceX’s Starbase facility likely contributed to the alleged confusion. As Elon Musk’s space venture continues expanding its South Texas operations, neighboring properties have found themselves in increasingly complex situations. The area has become a focal point for space industry development, creating pressure on surrounding landowners and sometimes leading to disputes over property boundaries and usage rights.
Cards Against Humanity’s commitment to maintaining their property in its natural state stood in stark contrast to the industrial activities allegedly taking place on their land. The company had invested in preserving the native ecosystem, making the claimed dumping of construction materials and debris particularly damaging from both environmental and financial perspectives. Their documentation of the land’s condition before and after the alleged trespassing became crucial evidence in building their case.
The six-month duration of the alleged unauthorized use suggests either a significant oversight in SpaceX’s property management or a deliberate decision to use the adjacent land despite unclear ownership rights. For a company of SpaceX’s size and legal sophistication, such extended use of neighboring property without proper authorization would represent a substantial operational failure.
This case highlights the growing tensions between rapid industrial development and property rights in areas experiencing sudden economic transformation. As space industry operations expand, similar disputes may become more common, particularly in regions where land ownership records might be unclear or where the pace of development outstrips traditional property management protocols.
The Border Wall Opposition Campaign That Started It All
A Calculated Publicity Stunt With Political Implications
Cards Against Humanity transformed political opposition into a strategic land acquisition when the company purchased property in Cameron County, Texas in 2017. This wasn’t a typical corporate investment—it was a deliberate publicity stunt designed to complicate President Trump’s proposed border wall construction. The satirical card game company positioned itself as an unlikely guardian of Texas land, using humor and crowdfunding to create a physical barrier to the administration’s immigration policies.
The campaign attracted massive grassroots support, with 150,000 contributors each donating $15 to fund the purchase. This collective action demonstrated how entertainment companies could mobilize their audiences for political causes. Each contributor received a certificate of ownership for their small piece of Texas real estate, creating a symbolic stake in border policy for thousands of Americans.
Strategic Delays and Legal Complications
Cards Against Humanity’s stated goal went beyond simple property ownership. The company explicitly designed the campaign to make border wall construction as time-consuming and expensive as possible for the Trump administration. This strategy recognized that property rights could serve as powerful tools for political resistance, forcing the government into lengthy legal proceedings before any construction could begin.
The purchase created a patchwork of ownership that would have required extensive eminent domain proceedings. Legal experts understood that acquiring privately held land for public projects typically involves complex negotiations and court battles. Cards Against Humanity’s ownership meant the government would face additional hurdles, including potential public relations challenges given the high-profile nature of the opposition.
The campaign highlighted how creative approaches to political resistance could emerge from unexpected sources. Corporate acquisitions had taken on new political dimensions during this period, with various business leaders and companies making strategic moves that intersected with policy debates.
The success of the crowdfunding effort revealed significant public opposition to border wall construction. Contributors came from across the United States, demonstrating that local Texas land disputes could resonate nationally. This geographic distribution of support created a constituency that extended far beyond the immediate border region.
Cards Against Humanity’s approach differed markedly from traditional advocacy methods. Instead of lobbying or protest activities, the company used property law and market mechanisms to advance political goals. This strategy appealed to supporters who wanted tangible action beyond signing petitions or attending rallies.
The timing of the purchase coincided with heightened national debate over immigration policy and border security. Cards Against Humanity inserted itself into this conversation through direct action rather than commentary. The company’s reputation for irreverent humor added an element of satire to serious policy discussions, attracting media attention that amplified the campaign’s impact.
Years later, this land purchase would become central to legal disputes involving other high-profile figures. The property’s history as a symbol of political resistance added layers of complexity to subsequent ownership changes and development plans. What began as a publicity stunt evolved into a more serious legal matter with lasting implications for all parties involved.
The campaign demonstrated how unconventional actors could influence political processes through creative use of existing legal and economic systems. Cards Against Humanity’s approach required no special expertise or connections—just sufficient funding and willingness to challenge established political narratives through property ownership.
Texas Law Made Legal Victory Financially Risky
Texas legal statutes create a challenging environment for plaintiffs pursuing property disputes, particularly when it comes to recovering attorney fees and court costs. Even winning cases don’t guarantee financial compensation for legal expenses, which can quickly escalate into six-figure amounts during complex litigation.
Cards Against Humanity faced this harsh reality when evaluating their legal options against Elon Musk’s alleged land encroachment. The company’s legal team calculated that pursuing the case through trial would likely cost more than any potential monetary award from the court. This cost-benefit analysis forced the company to confront an uncomfortable truth about the American legal system.
The Gap Between Public Expectations and Legal Reality
Supporters who contributed to Cards Against Humanity’s legal fund held optimistic expectations about potential payouts from a successful lawsuit. However, the company felt obligated to provide transparency about the likely outcomes:
- Legal fees in complex property disputes often exceed $100,000 regardless of case outcome
- Texas courts rarely award attorney fees to winning plaintiffs in civil property cases
- Monetary damages in land disputes typically reflect actual financial losses rather than punitive amounts
- Court proceedings can stretch for years, multiplying legal costs exponentially
Cards Against Humanity’s management made the difficult decision to warn contributors that financial distributions were unlikely, even with a favorable court ruling. This honest assessment disappointed many supporters who had hoped for both legal vindication and monetary compensation.
The company’s transparency about these legal realities highlighted a fundamental problem with the American justice system. Elon Musk’s substantial resources meant he could afford prolonged litigation, while Cards Against Humanity faced mounting costs that threatened to drain their legal fund completely.
Texas property law favors defendants in many situations, making it difficult for plaintiffs to recover costs even when they prove their case. The state’s legal framework doesn’t automatically compensate winning parties for their legal expenses, creating a system where deep-pocketed defendants can effectively outlast determined plaintiffs through extended court battles.
This financial reality ultimately influenced Cards Against Humanity’s decision to pursue settlement negotiations rather than risk everything on an uncertain trial outcome. The company prioritized protecting their contributors’ investments over pursuing maximum legal satisfaction, demonstrating how practical considerations often override principles in complex litigation scenarios.
Land Restoration and Musk-Themed Compensation
The settlement agreement reached between Cards Against Humanity and Elon Musk brought clear resolution to the South Texas land dispute. As part of the agreement, SpaceX committed to removing all construction equipment and materials that had accumulated on the property during their unauthorized use of the space.
Cards Against Humanity took immediate action to restore the land to its original condition. The company partnered with local landscaping firms to begin comprehensive restoration work on the property. This collaborative approach ensured that environmental remediation efforts would benefit from regional expertise while supporting the local economy.
Creative Compensation for Supporters
Rather than pursuing monetary damages, Cards Against Humanity chose an unconventional path for compensating their supporters who had contributed to the original land purchase. The company announced plans to create and distribute a special Musk-themed mini card pack to those who backed the initial project. This creative solution reflects the company’s signature irreverent approach while acknowledging the supporters who made the land acquisition possible.
The compensation package addresses the community’s investment in the project through several key elements:
- Distribution of the limited-edition card pack to original supporters
- Restoration of the land to its natural environmental state
- Removal of all unauthorized equipment and debris
- Commitment to preventing future unauthorized use of the property
The restoration process aims to eliminate what Cards Against Humanity characterized as “space garbage and pointless border walls” from the property. This cleanup effort represents more than simple maintenance — it’s a comprehensive environmental rehabilitation that will return the land to its pre-construction condition.
The special card pack serves as both compensation and commemoration of the legal battle. While supporters won’t receive direct financial compensation, this unique memorabilia offers tangible recognition of their role in the dispute. The Musk-themed content will likely reflect the company’s satirical take on the billionaire’s various business ventures and public persona.
Local landscaping companies have begun working on soil restoration, debris removal, and native vegetation replanting. The restoration timeline depends on environmental factors and the extent of cleanup required, but Cards Against Humanity has committed to completing the work promptly.
The settlement demonstrates how unconventional disputes can reach creative resolutions. Instead of lengthy court battles or substantial financial penalties, both parties agreed to practical remediation that addresses the core issues. SpaceX gets clarity on land boundaries for future operations, while Cards Against Humanity secures the restoration they sought from the beginning.
Environmental restoration specialists will assess soil quality and determine appropriate native plant species for replanting. The goal involves returning the ecosystem to its pre-disturbance state, supporting local wildlife and maintaining the natural character that originally attracted Cards Against Humanity to purchase the property.
This resolution reflects broader themes in property rights disputes involving high-profile individuals and corporations. The case highlights how smaller entities can successfully challenge unauthorized land use through strategic legal action and creative problem-solving.
The Musk-themed card pack will join Cards Against Humanity’s collection of expansion sets, though distribution will remain limited to original supporters of the land purchase project. This exclusive approach maintains the compensation’s value while creating a unique collectible tied to the legal settlement.
Moving forward, the restored land will serve its intended purpose as preserved space, free from commercial development or unauthorized use. The settlement establishes clear boundaries and expectations for all parties, preventing similar disputes from arising in the future while ensuring the property remains protected for its original conservation goals.
Crowdfunded Activism Meets Corporate Expansion Reality
The lawsuit between Cards Against Humanity and Elon Musk revealed fascinating dynamics between grassroots movements and tech industry expansion. Cards Against Humanity’s initial crowdfunded land purchase demonstrated how modern activism can leverage social media and community funding to challenge major corporate interests. The company transformed a simple game premise into political action, raising money from supporters who wanted to oppose border wall construction through direct property ownership.
Community Response and Brand Perception
The settlement exposed significant reputational considerations for Cards Against Humanity. The company faced potential backlash from its progressive customer base if perceived as collaborating with SpaceX or Musk’s ventures. This concern shaped their public messaging throughout the dispute, emphasizing their commitment to original activist goals while addressing practical legal realities. Their supporters had contributed money specifically to block border wall development, creating accountability pressures that traditional corporate land deals don’t typically face.
Corporate Expansion vs. Grassroots Resistance
This case illustrated broader tensions between tech industry growth and community-driven opposition movements. SpaceX’s expansion needs in South Texas represented typical corporate land acquisition patterns, while Cards Against Humanity’s approach showed how modern activism adapts traditional property rights strategies. The settlement ultimately highlighted how established legal frameworks handle conflicts between profit-driven expansion and ideologically motivated property ownership.
The aftermath demonstrated that crowdfunded activism can create genuine obstacles for major corporations, even when those obstacles eventually get resolved through legal channels. Cards Against Humanity’s approach forced SpaceX to engage in formal legal proceedings rather than simple property acquisition, adding time and complexity to corporate expansion plans. This dynamic suggests that community-driven property strategies may become more common as activists seek direct intervention methods in development disputes.
The case also revealed how social media-driven movements can sustain long-term property ownership commitments. Unlike traditional environmental or political protests that fade over time, property-based activism creates ongoing legal obligations that persist beyond initial publicity cycles. This permanence factor changes how corporations must approach land acquisition in areas where activist groups have established property positions.
The settlement terms, while not publicly detailed, likely reflected both parties’ desire to avoid prolonged litigation costs and continued public attention. For Cards Against Humanity, resolution allowed them to move past potential brand conflicts while maintaining their activist credibility. For SpaceX, settlement cleared legal obstacles to continued South Texas operations without extended public disputes over land rights and border politics.
Sources:
ABC News article: “Cards Against Humanity and Elon Musk’s SpaceX reach settlement over alleged trespassing in Texas”
KUT Texas Newsroom article: “Elon Musk, Cards Against Humanity settle lawsuit over South Texas land”
Houston Chronicle article: “Cards Against Humanity reaches a settlement in its SpaceX suit”
KVUE News segment: “Cards Against Humanity, SpaceX settle lawsuit involving South Texas land”
