A jury found that Elon Musk misled Twitter shareholders by driving down the company's stock price ahead of his $44 billion acquisition in 2022. The verdict concluded that two tweets Musk posted were false and misleading, though it did not hold him liable for a separate comment made on a podcast.
The jury also dismissed the investors' claim that Musk's tweets and comments amounted to a broader scheme. His attorneys called the verdict a "bump in the road" and said they "look forward to vindication on appeal."
According to the shareholders' lawyers, as reported by The Hill, Musk could now be forced to pay former shareholders around $2.5 billion.
Four shareholders sued Musk in October 2022 over the delayed disclosure of his ownership stake. Following his purchase of Twitter, Musk became the social media company's largest shareholder after acquiring a 9.2 percent ownership stake. Musk had been previously sued by Twitter shareholders in April 2022 over that same delayed disclosure.
In July 2024, Musk's lawyers argued the delay was a simple error. The shareholders' side framed it differently. Joseph Cotchett, one of the investors' attorneys, told CNBC after the verdict:
"This is a great example of what you cannot do to the average investor –– people that have 401ks, kids, pension funds, teachers, firemen, nurses."
Cotchett added:
"That's what this case was all about. This was not about Musk. It was about the whole operation."
Musk's legal team countered that there was "no harm" and characterized the filing delay as a "mistake." The split verdict, which rejected the scheme allegation while finding the tweets misleading, suggests the jury itself distinguished negligence and intent.
The shareholder lawsuit isn't Musk's only legal headache tied to the Twitter acquisition. The Securities and Exchange Commission investigated whether any federal securities laws had been violated in connection with the purchase. That investigation culminated in a lawsuit filed in January 2025, with the SEC claiming Musk withheld information that allowed him to underpay for shares after his financial beneficial ownership report was due.
Musk agreed to testify but later sought to have the case dismissed. He also attempted to move the case out of Washington, D.C., but a federal judge denied his request.
The timing of the SEC's involvement is worth noting. The agency filed its suit in January 2025, years after the underlying events took place. Federal regulators have a well-documented habit of pursuing high-profile targets when it serves institutional interests, and Musk, who has made no secret of his disdain for bloated government bureaucracy, makes an attractive one.
None of this means the legal claims lack merit. Courts will sort that out. But conservatives should keep their eyes open when the regulatory apparatus shows selective enthusiasm. The SEC had years to act on these allegations. The question of why it moved when it moved is a legitimate one.
The $2.5 billion figure will dominate the headlines, and for good reason. But the verdict itself is more nuanced than the number suggests. The jury rejected the scheme allegation outright. It cleared Musk on the podcast comment. What it found was that two specific tweets were misleading. That's a narrow finding, not a sweeping indictment.
Musk's team clearly intends to appeal, and a narrower finding may give them room to work with. The question is whether an appeals court sees the damages as proportional to what the jury actually concluded.
For now, this is a legal loss in a San Francisco courtroom. Not the first time that particular venue has delivered an unfriendly result for a figure the local political culture views unfavorably. Whether it holds up on appeal is the only question that matters.
The courtroom fight continues. The $2.5 billion price tag is a number on paper until the appeals process says otherwise.
