SpaceX has reached a settlement in a lawsuit brought by Cards Against Humanity, the popular card game company, concerning allegations of trespassing and property damage in Texas. This settlement comes just weeks ahead of a jury trial that was scheduled to begin on November 3, revealing that both parties opted to resolve the matter outside of court.
According to court records in Texas, the lawsuit was filed following claims from Cards Against Humanity that SpaceX unlawfully utilized a plot of land owned by the card company in Cameron County, Texas, for a duration of at least six months. This land was acquired by Cards Against Humanity in 2017 as part of a publicity stunt opposing former President Donald Trump's proposed border wall. The company asserted that SpaceX, which owned adjacent land, had placed construction materials and debris on their property without seeking permission.
During the discovery phase of the proceedings, SpaceX reportedly admitted to trespassing on the property. As stated by Cards Against Humanity in an email to media outlets, the decision to settle was influenced by the anticipated costs of a trial, which they believed would exceed potential damages. Despite this settlement, the company expressed relief that SpaceX had removed its construction equipment from the land, allowing Cards Against Humanity to partner with a local landscaping service to restore the area to its natural state.
The land acquisition was a collaborative effort, with approximately 150,000 individuals contributing $15 each, aimed at raising funds for the purchase. Cards Against Humanity had originally pursued $15 million in damages, citing the loss of vegetation and other impacts on the land. The company acknowledged that while they had hoped for a significant settlement, they had made it clear to their supporters that payouts would likely be minimal, if not nonexistent.
Cards Against Humanity has maintained the land in its natural form, bolstering its claim with a "no trespassing" sign to deter unauthorized access. As the case came to a close, the company reflected on its ambitions and expectations, emphasizing the community-driven nature of the land’s acquisition and its commitment to restoring the environment. Overall, this legal battle underscored the complexities tied to property rights and environmental stewardship within the realm of corporate activities.
