Through the court, a request emerged for Elon Musk, the SpaceX chairman and Twitter owner, to disclose all text messages from his smartphone for the first half of 2022. Bloomberg reports that the social network is pushing this demand after asserting that Musk held back evidence related to a proposed $44 billion acquisition. The request frames the period from January to June 2022 as critical, arguing that messages from Musk could illuminate the negotiations and any strategic decisions that influenced the sale process.
The appeal filed with U.S. Judge Catalyn McCormick urges an order compelling Musk to publish his personal messages covering January 1 through July 8 of the current year. The same demand extends to Jared Birchall, Musk’s longtime aide, whom Twitter associates with playing an active role in arranging the financing for the deal. Twitter contends that Birchall was deeply involved in the funding aspects, hinting that his communications could shed light on the financial structure and risk management of the transaction (Bloomberg).
Twitter’s legal team portrays Musk and his counsel as acting in bad faith during settlement discussions, arguing that their pre-trial exchanges contained information that should have been disclosed earlier. Musk’s lawyers vigorously dispute the accusation, maintaining that the alleged withholding of communications points to broader issues within Twitter itself and not to any misconduct on Musk’s part. The defense contends that the social network may be disguising relevant data as part of a broader strategy to control the narrative around the dispute and the breakup of the anticipated deal (Bloomberg).
In their filings, the lawyers for Musk assert that Twitter has engaged in a campaign to obscure witness testimony and to suppress data about spam, bot activity, and other platform integrity concerns. They suggest that Twitter’s commitment to transparency is selective and that the company’s own practices undermine trust in the platform as a reliable source of information. The argument hinges on the claim that crucial metrics and warning signs—the kind of data that would complicate the deal or explain a change of course—have not been adequately shared with the public or the court (Bloomberg).
Alex Spiro, who represents Musk, commented on the situation by noting that Twitter’s attempts to hide information and silence witnesses have not achieved their goals. He suggested that the social network is attempting to divert attention by introducing unrelated or inflammatory claims, describing the court action as a tactic meant to distract from substantive issues. The remarks reflect a broader tension between the parties over what constitutes responsive disclosure and how much of Musk’s private communications should be subject to court review (Bloomberg).
Earlier reports indicated that a letter from Musk’s legal team to Twitter summoned the testimony of Peter Zatko, the company’s former head of security. Zatko had previously criticized Twitter’s defenses for user data protection and overall security controls. The appearance of Zatko could potentially provide a third-party perspective on how information security practices intersect with the financial and strategic considerations surrounding the deal. The unfolding exchange underscores the high stakes involved as both sides seek to shape the court’s understanding of what happened, what was disclosed, and what remains hidden in the larger narrative of the bid and its subsequent fate (Bloomberg).