Musk's $44B Tweet: Acknowledging It "Wasn't Wisest" Amidst Market Manipulation Claims
Elon Musk, the world’s richest man, has publicly admitted that the tweet sparking a multibillion-dollar lawsuit over his $44 billion acquisition of Twitter (now X) “may not have been my wisest.” This admission came during a San Francisco court trial where Musk is defending himself against allegations of market manipulation. The case centers around a single tweet sent on May 13, 2022, that sent shockwaves through the market and ultimately led to a legal battle with Twitter shareholders.
The Tweet That Triggered a Legal Storm
The controversy began when Musk, after signing a binding agreement to acquire Twitter and waiving due diligence rights, began expressing concerns about the platform’s bot and spam accounts. On May 13th, he tweeted that the deal was “temporarily on hold” pending verification that spam/fake accounts represented less than 5% of users. This single post caused Twitter’s stock price to plummet 9% upon market opening.
Allegations of Market Manipulation
A group of Twitter investors alleges they suffered financial losses as a result of Musk’s actions. They claim he intentionally threatened to abandon the deal to gain leverage during negotiations, despite knowing he would be legally obligated to complete the acquisition. The plaintiffs argue that Musk’s behavior was a deliberate attempt to drive down the stock price, allowing him to potentially renegotiate a lower purchase price.
Musk's Defense: A Literal "On Hold"
During his testimony, Musk maintained that his “on hold” comment was literal, akin to informing someone he would be late to a meeting, not a signal of complete withdrawal. He stated he didn’t consider the potential impact on investor confidence or whether the market would interpret the tweet as a sign the takeover was in jeopardy. He characterized the tweet as a spontaneous thought, made in the early hours of the morning without consultation with advisors or friends.
“It may not have been my wisest tweet,” Musk conceded to the court. “I am not sure I would call it incredibly stupid… but if it led to this trial, it probably qualifies as such.”
Doubling Down and the Poop Emoji
Following the initial tweet, Musk escalated his concerns, publicly accusing Twitter of misrepresenting the number of bots on the platform. Four days later, he declared the deal “cannot go forward,” citing alleged inaccuracies in Twitter’s regulatory filings. His public criticism reached a particularly low point when he responded to Twitter CEO Parag Agrawal’s protestations about the bot data with a poop emoji on the platform.
The Stock Price Plunge and Subsequent Acquisition
Musk’s actions led to a significant decline in Twitter’s stock price, falling to just above $30 – a third below the agreed-upon price of $54.20 per share. The shareholders involved in the lawsuit sold their stock at this lower price. However, Twitter’s board ultimately sued Musk to enforce the original agreement, and the acquisition closed in October 2022 at the original terms.
The "Rope-a-Dope" Strategy?
Lawyers representing the plaintiffs presented evidence suggesting Musk was following a strategy advised by his bankers at Barclays – a “rope a dope” or “jujitsu” approach. This strategy allegedly involved initially proposing a generous deal price, then threatening to withdraw to potentially negotiate a lower price. Musk vehemently denied these claims, asserting he was “simply speaking my mind” and attempting to address legitimate concerns about the platform’s bot problem.
Barclays Emails Reveal Deal Tactics
Emails from Barclays bankers, presented as evidence, appeared to support the plaintiffs’ claims. A May 9th email suggested that Musk could “revisit price” by threatening to walk away, even if it meant paying a reverse break fee. A subsequent email, following Musk’s “on hold” tweet, indicated investors were giving the deal “50/50 odds” and the share price wouldn’t rise due to fears of further deal-altering tweets. Musk reportedly replied, “Matches my understanding of things.”
Potential Damages and Musk's Frustration
If the jury rules in favor of the plaintiffs, they are seeking billions of dollars in damages. An attorney for the plaintiffs argued that Musk operates under the belief he can act with impunity, regardless of the consequences. They accused him of orchestrating a “public spectacle” to damage Twitter’s reputation and drive down its stock price after experiencing buyer’s remorse and struggling to secure financing.
Musk grew visibly frustrated during questioning, accusing the lawyers of attempting to mislead the jury and “put words into my mouth.” He also cited an “insane workload” of 100 hours a week as a reason for his lack of preparation for the hearing.
Witness Testimony and Ongoing Legal Battles
Throughout the two-week trial, the plaintiffs have called upon several of Musk’s top lieutenants as witnesses, including his lawyer, Alex Spiro, who recused himself due to his involvement in the case. Jared Birchall, head of Musk’s family office, testified that Musk’s tweets were driven by frustration but that work on the deal continued uninterrupted.
Separate Legal Challenge Against OpenAI
This trial is not Musk’s only legal battle. He is also involved in a separate case in Oakland, where he is suing OpenAI and its CEO, Sam Altman, to prevent the startup’s transition from a non-profit to a for-profit entity. Musk was a co-founder of OpenAI in 2015 but left three years later after his attempt to acquire the company was rejected.
The Broader Implications for Tech Leaders and Social Media
This case has significant implications for the responsibilities of tech leaders and the potential consequences of their public statements. The outcome could set a precedent for how courts address claims of market manipulation based on social media posts. It also highlights the increasing scrutiny faced by high-profile figures like Musk, whose online activity can have a substantial impact on financial markets. The case underscores the importance of careful consideration and legal counsel before making public statements that could affect a company’s stock price, especially during sensitive periods like mergers and acquisitions. The influence of social media on market sentiment is undeniable, and this trial serves as a stark reminder of the potential legal ramifications of unchecked online communication. Furthermore, the case raises questions about the role of investment banks in advising clients on potentially manipulative strategies, as evidenced by the Barclays emails. The ongoing legal proceedings will undoubtedly be closely watched by investors, legal professionals, and anyone interested in the intersection of technology, finance, and the law. The future of X (formerly Twitter) and its trajectory under Musk’s leadership also hang in the balance, as the outcome of this trial could influence investor confidence and the company’s long-term prospects. Finally, the case serves as a cautionary tale about the power of a single tweet and the potential for unintended consequences in the age of social media. The role of GearTech and other tech news outlets will be crucial in providing ongoing coverage and analysis of this evolving situation.
© 2026 The Financial Times Ltd. All rights reserved. Not to be redistributed, copied, or modified in any way.