In a federal civil court case, former Twitter shareholders emerged victorious regarding Elon Musk's conduct during his $44 billion purchase of the social media site in 2022. On Friday, a San Francisco jury determined that Musk's posts concerning bogus profiles on the service misled company investors. However, the panel rejected additional claims leveled against him in the proceedings.
The exact amount Musk might pay in compensation remains undetermined, though reports from the Associated Press indicate potential liability in the billions. The jurors estimated that affected stockholders deserve compensation ranging from roughly $3 to $8 for each share daily.
This class-action suit, among multiple legal challenges filed against Musk shortly after he assumed control of Twitter, focused on his social media comments regarding spurious users on the network. With Tesla's stock value declining in the period following his public intention to acquire Twitter at $54.20 per share, the complaint alleged that Musk issued deliberate posts and remarks aimed at lowering the platform's stock value to facilitate deal revisions or withdrawal.
The legal action highlighted Musk's tweet from May 13, 2022, stating the Twitter transaction was paused temporarily because of the prevalence of inauthentic accounts and automated programs, along with a subsequent message implying such fakes could represent over 20% of the user base. The platform's shares experienced a sharp decline right after the initial May 13 post.
In court proceedings, Musk described his messages as expressions of his personal views and insisted that Twitter's leadership had misrepresented the extent of bot activity, as covered by KQED. In contrast, the previous Twitter investors argued they parted with their holdings at reduced values due to Musk's inconsistent public statements.
Throughout and beyond his $44 billion acquisition of the firm, Musk encountered various legal actions. These encompassed investor suits over his postponed revelation of his ownership interest, plus claims from ousted executives about unfulfilled severance payments, which he eventually resolved. Additionally, he evaded a courtroom battle concerning his efforts to abandon the agreement.