Musk Dismisses Twitter Verdict as a Joke, Calls $4.20 Settlement Mockery

A Controversial Verdict and the Question of Fairness

Elon Musk, the billionaire CEO of Tesla and X (formerly Twitter), has found himself in a legal battle that has sparked significant debate over the fairness of the trial process. His attorney, Alex Spiro, has raised concerns about the outcome of a civil trial in which a San Francisco jury concluded that Musk defrauded Twitter shareholders before acquiring the social media platform. According to Spiro, the jury’s actions during the trial were “bizarre and highly questionable,” particularly due to an unusual decision involving a specific number on the verdict form.

The $4.20 Dispute

One of the most contentious aspects of the case was the jury’s focus on the number $4.20, which they highlighted in blue ink on the verdict form. This figure is widely recognized as cultural slang for marijuana use, leading to speculation that the jury may have been making a joke at Musk’s expense. Spiro argued that this number had no relevance to the damages calculated in the case and suggested that the jury used it as a way to mock Musk rather than to determine the actual financial impact of his actions.

The jury found that Musk misled investors in 2022 by tweeting that Twitter had too many fake accounts, which led to a drop in stock value. They also determined that Musk attempted to back out of his $44 billion offer to acquire the company. However, the panel rejected claims that a third tweet violated federal securities law and dismissed allegations of a broader scheme to defraud investors.

Legal Responses and Ongoing Appeals

Musk’s legal team has vowed to appeal the verdict, arguing that the trial was fundamentally unfair. In a letter to US District Judge Charles Breyer, Spiro described the jury’s actions as a “mockery of justice” and claimed that the panel used the verdict to mock both Musk and the judicial process. He further stated that the jury’s emphasis on $4.20 was not based on any meaningful analysis of the case but rather on personal bias against Musk.

In response, the lawyers representing the investors accused Spiro’s letter of being “unsolicited” and improper, noting that it did not seek any specific form of relief. They argued that the letter was “egregiously unfaithful to the record in this case.”

A History of Legal Challenges

This is not the first time Musk has faced legal scrutiny. In 2018, he drew the attention of federal regulators when he tweeted that he had “funding secured” to take Tesla private at $420 per share. The stock price initially surged, only to fall sharply when Musk later abandoned the plan. A San Francisco jury cleared him of wrongdoing in 2023, but the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) pursued a separate lawsuit, alleging that the $420 figure was chosen as a reference to marijuana use. The SEC eventually settled the case, with Musk and Tesla agreeing to pay $40 million without admitting or denying wrongdoing.

Spiro did not directly reference the Tesla case in his letter to the judge, but he implied that the jury’s focus on $4.20 was a deliberate nod to Musk’s past controversies.

The Financial Implications

The jury’s verdict could cost Musk billions of dollars in damages. While the exact amount will be determined later, the investors’ attorney estimates that the final tab could reach $2.6 billion. As part of its ruling, the jury estimated the “artificial deflation per share” of Twitter stock over five months in 2022. The verdict sheet included handwritten figures ranging from less than $3 to more than $8 for each trading day from May 13 through October 3 of that year.

The Aug. 9 figure — $4.20 — stands out as the only one not written in black ink, raising questions about its significance in the context of the case.

The Broader Context

Musk’s legal challenges are not limited to the Twitter case. His actions have drawn attention from various regulatory bodies and courts, often due to his public statements and business decisions. Critics argue that his behavior has created uncertainty in the markets, while supporters maintain that his innovations and leadership have driven significant growth in the tech sector.

As the legal proceedings continue, the question of whether Musk received a fair trial remains a central issue. The case, Pampena v. Musk, 22-cv-05937, is being heard in the US District Court, Northern District of California (San Francisco).