Elon Musk's most recent court filing accuses Twitter of security flaws
Elon Musk's most recent court filing accuses Twitter of security flaws
Translate This News In

According to a court document filed on Thursday, billionaire Elon Musk claimed that Twitter Inc. committed fraud by hiding substantial data security weaknesses, which the entrepreneur claimed should have allowed him to terminate his $44 billion acquisition deal for the firm.

The richest man in the world, Musk, revised an earlier complaint he had filed by incorporating claims made by a Twitter whistleblower who on Tuesday informed Congress of foreign agents’ interference on the significant social media network.

A 2011 agreement between Twitter and the Federal Trade Commission involving user data was allegedly broken, according to the CEO of electric vehicle manufacturer Tesla Inc.

READ:   Donald Trump claims that his Florida home is "under siege" and has been "raided" by the FBI

The updated countersuit stated that the Musk Parties “have the complete right to withdraw from the Merger Agreement for several independently adequate reasons, which are now abundantly obvious in light of the most recent discoveries.”

Peiter “Mudge” Zatko, the former director of security at Twitter, made the allegations, and according to Musk, they amount to fraud and a breach of contract on Twitter’s part.

While Musk has asked the judge in Delaware to find that he was not compelled to complete the transaction, Twitter is asking the judge to order Musk to buy the company at $54.20 per share. On October 17, the trial will begin and last for five days.

READ:   The US is planning a security review of Elon Musk's $44 billion Twitter deal, according to a report

In late Thursday trade, shares of Twitter were up 0.6%.

Twitter claims to have performed an internal inquiry into Zatko’s claims and found them to be unfounded. According to the business, Zatko’s performance led to his termination.

Twitter’s attorneys testified in court that the whistleblower allegations that Musk included into his case were either insufficient to void the contract or fell short of the requirements for fraud.