Twitter’s battle against Elon Musk isn’t only happening in court

The company is fighting Elon on his turf: Twitter.

A Twitter icon being overshadowed by a poop emoji.

Any lawsuit can lay out the facts of a legal case, but it takes a certain amount of style to come up with plain-language pull quotes that can make the rounds online.

Illustration: Christopher T. Fong/Protocol

Elon Musk’s heel-turn trying to get out of his very public, very legally binding contract to acquire Twitter is neither surprising nor unanticipated. Musk has a history of treating business as an elaborate Extremely Online goof, and he publicly broadcast both his plan to buy Twitter and his desire to get out of his plan to buy Twitter on — where else? — Twitter.

Twitter’s lawsuit against Musk, arguing he should in fact be bound to the legally binding contract he signed, is likewise neither surprising nor unanticipated. But the degree to which the suit seems tailor-made to challenge Musk in his domain — the world of the terminally online, Twitter itself — is.

In a literal sense, the case (PDF) is being fought out in the Delaware Court of Chancery, which is effectively the U.S. Court of Money. Thousands of business disputes large and small pass through the court every year, and it takes a special pride in its “unique competence in and exposure to issues of business law.”

But the suit is also being fought, somewhat recursively, on Twitter itself, being written in screenshot-friendly bites all but engineered to go viral.

Perhaps it was inevitable: Musk is a Twitter power-user who seemingly decided on a whim one day that he should own the bar he hangs out in. And so we find ourselves with something of a meta-lawsuit: It’s taking place on Twitter, about Twitter, using Twitter itself as the evidence.

The extremely online acquisition

Usually in a merger case, nasty tweets aren’t likely to matter much. But thanks to Musk’s history, all the shitposting isn’t just relevant to the case; it is the case.

Twitter’s lawyers are no dummies; they know exactly who they’re working with. The original definitive merger agreement Twitter entered with Musk in April contains several provisions specifically barring exactly the kind of behavior in which Musk tends to engage.

One section on public announcements, for example, says that Musk’s acquisition vehicle and Twitter “shall consult with each other before … making any public statements with respect to this agreement, and none of the parties … shall issue any such press release or make any public statement prior to obtaining the other parties’ consent.” And just in case one might wonder if tweets count as public statements, the agreement also put limits around what, specifically, Musk can tweet about the deal, allowing he “shall be permitted to issue tweets about the merger … so long as such tweets do not disparage the company or any of its representatives.”

Musk, however, did not seem to feel constrained by these clauses and has consistently tweeted basically whatever he wants about the company throughout. Nobody seems able to slow him down: Despite a settlement with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission limiting his tweets, a separate investigation by the SEC and a series of lawsuits from Twitter shareholders, he just keeps tweeting. His first hints about what pretext he would land on to get out of the deal (the alleged prevalence of bots on the platform) came in several tweets in May.

In the end, perhaps inevitably, he even tweeted out his plan to terminate the deal, by sharing a meme image apparently gloating that Twitter would be forced to reveal previously undisclosed information in court.

And the extremely online breakup

As it turns out, two can play at that game.

Twitter’s lawsuit is extremely aware of what Twitter is and does. Any lawsuit can lay out the facts of a legal case, but it takes a certain amount of style to come up with plain-language pull quotes that can make the rounds online. Twitter’s suit not only relies heavily on Musk’s public tweets to make its case that he stands in breach of contract, but also itself exists in highly quotable and screen-grabbable snippets.

The lawsuit itself kicks off with a bang. “Having mounted a public spectacle to put Twitter in play, and having proposed and then signed a seller-friendly merger agreement, Musk apparently believes that he — unlike every other party subject to Delaware contract law — is free to change his mind, trash the company, disrupt its operations, destroy stockholder value, and walk away,” the introduction reads. Such a perfectly quotable allegation is, alas, prevented by a page break from making a good viral image, but other carefully worded chunks of text make the rounds with panache.

For example:

Musk grasps for an out: Musk wanted an escape. But the merger agreement left him little room. With no financing contingency or diligence condition, the agreement gave Musk no out absent a Company Material Adverse Effect or a material covenant breach by Twitter. Musk had to try to conjure one of those. Screenshot: Protocol

Or, more succinctly:

"Musk responded with another disparaging Tweet," followed by a screencapture of Elon Musk tweeting a single poop emoji in response to a tweet from Twitter CEO Parag Agrawal.Screenshot: Protocol

We have now gotten to the infinitely recursive, “Inception”-level space where we have Twitter users taking and sharing screencaps of the Twitter screencaps that are in the lawsuit:

Why does it matter?

The Court of Chancery takes the business of business very seriously, and it tends to look poorly on people and companies who flout the rules. Although the Stringer Bell rule (heavily paraphrased from the NSFW original, that one should not leave written notes about one’s criminal activities) is not actually part of Delaware corporate law, it’s nonetheless generally good advice.

Musk has been trying to weasel out of the deal since only a few weeks after it was inked, but Twitter has consistently taken the position that a deal’s a deal and pushed him to hold up his end.

In reality, the deal has been a no-win situation for the Twitter board since the day it found out Musk had quietly amassed a 9% stake in the company. The company should be able to ignore an obvious troll — but this particular troll, with 101 million followers and counting, has an enormous amount of influence. His very public, very obvious trolling influences the performance of companies he talks about, and his overtures to Twitter — made with all the subtlety of a brick thrown through a window — had an impact on its performance.

And with roughly $200 billion to his name (more or less), this particular troll can put his money where his mouth is, or at least could if he wanted to. Usually if a buyer shows up offering to buy your company at a major premium over your current trading price, they actually plan to follow through with it. But instead, all of Musk’s tweets make a big, visible pile of bad-faith posturing — in poop emoji form — right there on the internet for everyone to see.

Judge Zia Faruqui is trying to teach you crypto, one ‘SNL’ reference at a time

His decisions on major cryptocurrency cases have quoted "The Big Lebowski," "SNL," and "Dr. Strangelove." That’s because he wants you — yes, you — to read them.

The ways Zia Faruqui (right) has weighed on cases that have come before him can give lawyers clues as to what legal frameworks will pass muster.

Photo: Carolyn Van Houten/The Washington Post via Getty Images

“Cryptocurrency and related software analytics tools are ‘The wave of the future, Dude. One hundred percent electronic.’”

That’s not a quote from "The Big Lebowski" — at least, not directly. It’s a quote from a Washington, D.C., district court memorandum opinion on the role cryptocurrency analytics tools can play in government investigations. The author is Magistrate Judge Zia Faruqui.

Keep ReadingShow less
Veronica Irwin

Veronica Irwin (@vronirwin) is a San Francisco-based reporter at Protocol covering fintech. Previously she was at the San Francisco Examiner, covering tech from a hyper-local angle. Before that, her byline was featured in SF Weekly, The Nation, Techworker, Ms. Magazine and The Frisc.

The financial technology transformation is driving competition, creating consumer choice, and shaping the future of finance. Hear from seven fintech leaders who are reshaping the future of finance, and join the inaugural Financial Technology Association Fintech Summit to learn more.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Financial Technology Association (FTA) represents industry leaders shaping the future of finance. We champion the power of technology-centered financial services and advocate for the modernization of financial regulation to support inclusion and responsible innovation.

AWS CEO: The cloud isn’t just about technology

As AWS preps for its annual re:Invent conference, Adam Selipsky talks product strategy, support for hybrid environments, and the value of the cloud in uncertain economic times.

Photo: Noah Berger/Getty Images for Amazon Web Services

AWS is gearing up for re:Invent, its annual cloud computing conference where announcements this year are expected to focus on its end-to-end data strategy and delivering new industry-specific services.

It will be the second re:Invent with CEO Adam Selipsky as leader of the industry’s largest cloud provider after his return last year to AWS from data visualization company Tableau Software.

Keep ReadingShow less
Donna Goodison

Donna Goodison (@dgoodison) is Protocol's senior reporter focusing on enterprise infrastructure technology, from the 'Big 3' cloud computing providers to data centers. She previously covered the public cloud at CRN after 15 years as a business reporter for the Boston Herald. Based in Massachusetts, she also has worked as a Boston Globe freelancer, business reporter at the Boston Business Journal and real estate reporter at Banker & Tradesman after toiling at weekly newspapers.

Image: Protocol

We launched Protocol in February 2020 to cover the evolving power center of tech. It is with deep sadness that just under three years later, we are winding down the publication.

As of today, we will not publish any more stories. All of our newsletters, apart from our flagship, Source Code, will no longer be sent. Source Code will be published and sent for the next few weeks, but it will also close down in December.

Keep ReadingShow less
Bennett Richardson

Bennett Richardson ( @bennettrich) is the president of Protocol. Prior to joining Protocol in 2019, Bennett was executive director of global strategic partnerships at POLITICO, where he led strategic growth efforts including POLITICO's European expansion in Brussels and POLITICO's creative agency POLITICO Focus during his six years with the company. Prior to POLITICO, Bennett was co-founder and CMO of Hinge, the mobile dating company recently acquired by Match Group. Bennett began his career in digital and social brand marketing working with major brands across tech, energy, and health care at leading marketing and communications agencies including Edelman and GMMB. Bennett is originally from Portland, Maine, and received his bachelor's degree from Colgate University.


Why large enterprises struggle to find suitable platforms for MLops

As companies expand their use of AI beyond running just a few machine learning models, and as larger enterprises go from deploying hundreds of models to thousands and even millions of models, ML practitioners say that they have yet to find what they need from prepackaged MLops systems.

As companies expand their use of AI beyond running just a few machine learning models, ML practitioners say that they have yet to find what they need from prepackaged MLops systems.

Photo: artpartner-images via Getty Images

On any given day, Lily AI runs hundreds of machine learning models using computer vision and natural language processing that are customized for its retail and ecommerce clients to make website product recommendations, forecast demand, and plan merchandising. But this spring when the company was in the market for a machine learning operations platform to manage its expanding model roster, it wasn’t easy to find a suitable off-the-shelf system that could handle such a large number of models in deployment while also meeting other criteria.

Some MLops platforms are not well-suited for maintaining even more than 10 machine learning models when it comes to keeping track of data, navigating their user interfaces, or reporting capabilities, Matthew Nokleby, machine learning manager for Lily AI’s product intelligence team, told Protocol earlier this year. “The duct tape starts to show,” he said.

Keep ReadingShow less
Kate Kaye

Kate Kaye is an award-winning multimedia reporter digging deep and telling print, digital and audio stories. She covers AI and data for Protocol. Her reporting on AI and tech ethics issues has been published in OneZero, Fast Company, MIT Technology Review, CityLab, Ad Age and Digiday and heard on NPR. Kate is the creator of RedTailMedia.org and is the author of "Campaign '08: A Turning Point for Digital Media," a book about how the 2008 presidential campaigns used digital media and data.

Latest Stories