Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minute2Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problems3Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesElon Musk denied misleading Twitter investors during his 2022 takeover attempt, saying he believed the company understated the number of bots and that “temporarily on hold” did not mean he was abandoning the deal. A federal jury later found him liable for misleading investors through two tweets—but not a podcast comment—and did not find an intentional scheme to defraud. In July 2026, the judge removed liability for one of the tweets while rejecting most of Musk’s efforts to undo the verdict.
What Musk said, and what he argued in court
The case concerned Musk’s proposed $44 billion acquisition of Twitter. In a May 13, 2022, tweet, he said the deal was “temporarily on hold” while he sought details supporting Twitter’s estimate that spam and fake accounts made up less than 5% of users. On May 17, he wrote that the bot percentage could be much higher than 20% and that the deal “cannot move forward” until Twitter’s chief executive proved the figure was below 5%.
At trial, Musk said he believed Twitter had understated its bot numbers and that “temporarily on hold” did not mean he was walking away from the purchase. He described himself as “simply speaking my mind.” The Associated Press reported his testimony: “I can’t control whether people sell their stock, but everyone who held the stock fared extremely well.” Those were Musk’s arguments, not the jury’s findings.
What the jury decided
The trial began March 2, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, and the jury returned its verdict on March 20. Jurors considered the two tweets and a podcast comment from May 2022. They found Musk liable for misleading investors through two tweets, rejected liability for the podcast comment, and did not find that he intentionally schemed to defraud investors. The Associated Press’s verdict report describes the jury’s decision.
#1 Best Overall
The verdict was therefore mixed: it did not establish liability for every challenged statement or an intentional fraud scheme. It addressed claims by a defined investor class, rather than every Twitter shareholder or everyone who traded during the period.
Who the investor class covered
The class covered people and entities who, from May 13 through October 4, 2022, sold publicly traded Twitter stock or call options, or bought put options, and suffered damages from the alleged violations. The federal judgment’s class definition is available in the case record. The criteria matter: a person who simply owned Twitter shares, or traded during those dates without the specified transaction and damages, was not automatically part of the class.
Rank #2
What changed in the judge’s July ruling
On July 6, 2026, U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer rejected Musk’s bid to void the verdict and his motion to decertify the investor class. He also granted the investors’ request for prejudgment interest, but ruled Musk not liable for the May 17 tweet. Reuters reported that the May 17 post did not produce the market reaction needed to support liability; liability remained based on the May 13 tweet. Reuters’ report on the post-trial ruling quotes Breyer: “Even if the speaker has a change of heart or a momentary regret about a transaction, such qualms do not justify lying to the investing public.” Reuters also reported the judge’s conclusion that there was “substantial evidence of falsity” in the May 13 tweet.
The July decision narrowed the basis for liability but did not erase the verdict. Musk’s lawyers said after the March verdict that they looked forward to vindication on appeal. The available reporting establishes the July post-trial ruling, but not a later appeal filing or decision.
What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
How much could Musk owe?
The jury set damages on a per-share, per-day basis. The Associated Press reported a range of about $3 to $8 per share per day. That measure is distinct from the aggregate estimates lawyers later gave; it is not itself a final total for every investor or proof of a payment.
| Figure | What it represents | Status |
|---|---|---|
| About $3 to $8 per share per day | The jury’s reported damages range, according to the Associated Press | A per-share, per-day measure, not an aggregate award total |
| About $2.1 billion in stock losses plus $500 million in options | Plaintiffs’ counsel’s estimate after the verdict, reported by the Associated Press | An estimate, not a final paid amount |
| About $2.6 billion | Counsel’s post-trial estimate of what Musk could owe, reported by Reuters | An estimate; Reuters also reported that the judge granted prejudgment interest |
The Associated Press’s damages report and Reuters’ post-trial report attribute the aggregate figures to plaintiffs’ counsel. The sources establish estimates, not a final damages accounting or payment.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.How to distinguish this case from another Twitter investor suit
A separate Delaware Court of Chancery opinion from July 2025 involved a self-represented retail investor. That opinion discussed the investor’s claimed loss and dismissed his claims on personal-jurisdiction and other legal grounds; it was not the federal class action and did not determine the outcome for the class. The Delaware opinion concerns that separate suit.
Quick Recap
Best Value
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
