Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minute2Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errors3Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesIn May 2023, Twitter accused Microsoft of possibly violating its developer agreement through the way eight registered applications used Twitter’s API. A letter from Twitter lawyer Alex Spiro cited more than 780 million API requests and retrieval of more than 26 billion tweets during 2022, and raised concerns about rate limits, permitted uses and government-related customers. Those were Twitter’s allegations, not a finding that Microsoft broke the rules. Microsoft said it had received the letter and would review the questions.
What did Twitter accuse Microsoft of?
In a letter to Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella, Twitter said the company’s eight registered API applications—described collectively as the “Microsoft Apps”—may have violated Twitter’s Developer Agreement and policies. The letter cited usage in 2022 and asked Microsoft for information about its data practices. The published letter uses qualified language; it does not establish that a breach occurred.
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
- High API volume: Twitter said the applications made more than 780 million API requests and retrieved more than 26 billion tweets during 2022. The letter does not establish whether the tweet figure counts unique posts or repeated retrievals.
- Possible rate-limit circumvention: Twitter pointed to rules against exceeding or working around rate limits and cited an application description that allegedly promised customers they could “go around throttling limits.”
- Uses Twitter said were unauthorized: The letter alleged that Microsoft used Twitter data for purposes not permitted by the agreement.
- Government-related customers: Twitter alleged that Azure Logic Apps for Fairfax supplied Twitter content to Microsoft endpoints associated with a government entity or agency, without disclosures or permissions Twitter said its agreement required.
The allegations concerned specific applications and their use of the API. They should not be read as a claim that every Microsoft product or all Azure services were involved. Nor does the government-related allegation, by itself, establish that a government accessed Twitter’s private systems or that surveillance occurred. Ars Technica’s contemporaneous report describes the Fairfax allegation.
Why did the dispute arise?
Twitter was changing how developers and businesses could access its data. In 2023 it introduced paid API access and new restrictions; Microsoft reportedly declined to pay the new fees for continued use and stopped using Twitter data in certain products. Contemporary reporting put the Basic tier at $100 per month and Enterprise access at about $42,000 per month to start. Those are reported 2023 prices, not current rates, and Enterprise costs depended on usage and requirements. Thurrott’s report covered the pricing and dispute; a 2023 letter from U.S. lawmakers raised concerns about the effects of Twitter’s API pricing changes on researchers and developers.
#1 Best Overall
The commercial disagreement and the alleged policy violations were related, but distinct. Microsoft’s reported decision not to accept the new fees explains why API access became a point of conflict; it does not prove or disprove Twitter’s claims about earlier usage. Twitter, meanwhile, was seeking both to enforce contractual limits and to move access toward a paid model.
The confrontation had already become public. On April 19, 2023, Elon Musk threatened Microsoft with litigation after it removed Twitter from an advertising-management product, amid the wider API disagreement. A public threat, however, is not a filed lawsuit or a court ruling.
What did Twitter ask Microsoft to do?
The letter sought information about Microsoft’s use of Twitter data over the preceding two years, including its API usage, applications, customers and compliance with the Developer Agreement. Contemporaneous reporting said Twitter sought a response by June 2023. Requesting information or an audit does not itself prove that the company being asked breached a contract.
Microsoft confirmed receipt of the letter and said it would review Twitter’s questions and respond appropriately. It also expressed interest in continuing the companies’ long-term partnership. That response was an acknowledgment of the letter, not an admission of wrongdoing.
Was the dispute about AI training?
AI was part of the surrounding argument, but the May letter is not proof that Microsoft trained a particular model on Twitter data or violated its agreement through AI training. In April 2023, Musk had publicly accused Microsoft of illegally using Twitter data to train AI models. The published May letter focused more specifically on API volume, possible rate-limit circumvention, permitted uses and government-related customers.
The episode belongs to a broader 2023 shift: social platforms were asserting tighter control over data access and exploring licensing revenue from AI companies and other large users. But whether any particular collection or training use was allowed depends on the applicable agreement and the facts; this letter did not resolve that question for Microsoft.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.Does public access mean anyone can reuse tweets?
No. A tweet that is publicly viewable is not automatically free for every automated or commercial use. A platform may set contractual terms for developers who access content through its API, including limits on volume, caching, redistribution or particular customer uses.
That contractual question is separate from whether a use violates copyright, privacy or data-protection law. The letter primarily raised claims about Twitter’s developer agreement and API policies; it was not a regulatory finding that Microsoft violated privacy law, and it does not establish that Twitter owned every underlying user right.
Best Value
What is established—and what remains unproven?
| Established by the public record described in the letter and contemporaneous reporting | Not established by those materials |
|---|---|
| Twitter’s lawyer sent Nadella a letter alleging possible Developer Agreement violations. | That Microsoft definitively breached the agreement or was found liable. |
| The letter cited more than 780 million API requests and more than 26 billion retrieved tweets in 2022. | That the tweet total represents unique tweets, or that the volume exceeded the precise contractual limit applicable to each application. |
| Twitter raised concerns about rate limits, allowed uses and a government-related customer. | That Microsoft intentionally circumvented limits, improperly shared data, or used it for unlawful AI training. |
| Microsoft acknowledged receiving the letter and said it would review the questions. | That Microsoft admitted wrongdoing, or that Twitter won damages in a lawsuit. |
The available published materials establish the demand letter and Microsoft’s acknowledgment, but do not establish a final court judgment or a public settlement resolving these specific claims. That is not proof that no later private resolution occurred.
Why the API-versus-scraping distinction matters
Twitter’s letter concerned registered applications using its API. That is different from web scraping: API access is mediated through applications and governed by developer terms, while scraping generally means automated extraction through web pages or other interfaces. The method of access can change which contractual restrictions apply, so describing the allegations simply as “scraping” would be inaccurate.
Quick Recap
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.
Recommended Free Tools
