Hacker News Reader

Or was the item broken in the box?

How was he to know they would intentionally misrepresent the number of fake users on the platform? Couldn't he argue twitter tried to defraud?

View on HN

There's a standard due diligence process that companies go through for mergers and acquisitions etc, through which you get access to material data.

He chose not to do that. He chose to make the acquisition "sight unseen" in a way that also left the him on the hook for $1bn if he pulled out of the deal.

Now he's trying to dodge the $1bn clause, but the contract he signed doesn't give him many ways out.

Musk waived due diligence in making his offer, and Twitter clearly relied on that waiver when accepting it.

Not a lawyer, but I wonder if the wording on that applies only if there was no attempt to deceive, which would be criminal. It might apply a different standard, since the user count has been used for years in public filings misrepresenting the true value of the company to their shareholders. Could open up twitter to a class action.

I agree it'll end up being a fight for the lawyers, but Musk cannot credibly claim to be surprised by the bot problem when so much of his and Tesla's twitter presence is propped up by bots (25% of activity due to a recent study - https://today.umd.edu/researcher-studies-teslas-twitter-bot-...)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com