Within the reply to Twitter’s criticism, which incorporates counter-claims in opposition to the corporate, Musk’s group makes an attempt to refute the corporate’s allegations that the Tesla CEO is unjustly attempting to exit the deal. His group repeats allegations that Twitter has misstated the variety of pretend and spam bot accounts on its platform — a central cost Musk has made to justify terminating the acquisition settlement after initially citing a need to “defeat the spam bots” as a purpose for purchasing the corporate.
Primarily based on that evaluation, Musk alleges that throughout the first week of July, spam bots accounted for 33% of seen accounts on the platform and about 10% of Twitter’s monetizable day by day energetic customers, or mDAU. (Twitter, for its half, has constantly reported that spam and faux bot accounts make up lower than 5% of its mDAU.)
In its response, Twitter takes subject with Musk’s evaluation of spam bots, saying that the “firehose” of information he used “displays many Twitter accounts that aren’t included in mDAU” and that the Botometer device he used depends on a special course of than the corporate to find out whether or not an account could also be a bot. It added that Botometer “earlier this 12 months designed Musk himself as extremely prone to be a bot.”
The back-and-forth between Twitter and Musk presents a preview of the arguments either side will make when the case goes to trial, assuming they do not comply with a settlement first. A five-day trial is about to kick off on October 17, after Twitter had pressed to expedite the proceedings.
Along with doubling down on issues about bot accounts, Musk’s responses additionally criticized Twitter’s use of monetizable day by day energetic customers, a metric Twitter publicly reviews to advertisers and shareholders to signify its progress.
Musk claims that his evaluations present solely a small portion of the customers Twitter considers mDAU truly generate vital income for the corporate by viewing and fascinating with commercials, alleging that the measure shouldn’t be truly nearly as good an indicator of future income progress potential and long-term efficiency as Twitter’s public filings suggest.
“Twitter additionally doesn’t publish the methodology it follows to find out its mDAU depend, or the way it excludes nonmonetizable accounts from that metric,” Musk’s reply states. “Thus, this can be very tough for any third celebration to utterly recreate Twitter’s mDAU calculations.”
Musk’s reply alleges Twitter management has incentives to report “excessive mDAU numbers to stoke investor curiosity” and since its government compensation construction relies partly on mDAU.
In its reply, Musk’s group explains that the billionaire is anxious with the spam bot subject as a result of “transitioning customers who don’t generate any income into extra energetic customers … is not any simple activity.” Musk’s group provides: “An organization targeted on including these energetic customers would make investments substantial sources in direction of attempting to enhance Twitter to maximise engagement, similar to by successfully concentrating on spam or false accounts.”
Twitter mentioned in its response to Musk’s counterclaims that its mDAU depend has by no means purported to indicate what number of customers generate vital income by interacting with adverts, however reasonably reveals the variety of actual customers who may very well be monetized by being proven adverts. It additionally famous that Musk’s mDAU-related claims weren’t included in his preliminary termination submitting and “are a newly invented litigating place.”
The corporate additionally continues to assert that the difficulty of bots shouldn’t be, and has by no means been, germane to the completion of the acquisition deal. “Musk has acquired large quantities of data from Twitter, for months, and has been unable to discover a legitimate excuse to again out of the contract,” Twitter’s response states.
In a letter to Twitter staff that was included in Friday’s regulatory submitting, Twitter Normal Counsel Sean Edgett mentioned that whereas Twitter had the chance to request redactions in Musk’s reply, it selected to not. (Twitter had beforehand despatched a letter to the decide overseeing the case asking her to make sure Musk’s group wouldn’t file the general public reply early so they might have sufficient time to evaluation it for potential redactions.)
“We selected to not redact any information–we absolutely stand behind our SEC filings, the methodologies we use to calculate mDAU, and our statements concerning the proportion of spam accounts on our platform,” Edgett mentioned within the letter.