Elon Musk can expect to get the scoop on Twitter's spam, after all.
The social media platform plans to comply with a demand from Tesla's CEO for internal numbers so he can analyze the prevalence of bot accounts, the Washington Post reported Wednesday.
The billionaire has made no secret of his frustration with Twitter -- from its management to fake accounts -- since shortly after he made a $44 billion deal to buy the company in mid-April.
Twitter's board plans to provide Musk with data comprising more than 500 million posts a day, the Post reported, citing a person familiar with the firm's thinking.
Twitter (ticker: TWTR) declined to comment.
Shares ticked 0.7% higher, to $40.41, after the report. Still, the price is nearly $14 lower than the $54.20 that Musk agreed to pay. The big gap indicates skepticism from Wall Street that the deal will go through.
On Monday, Musk disclosed a letter he sent to Twitter's attorneys arguing that he had been denied user data that he needs to evaluate the company's disclosures about bot accounts.
In response, Twitter said that it has shared -- and will continue to share -- information with Musk to close the deal. Tesla didn't return a request for comment from Musk.
"We believe this agreement is in the best interest of all shareholders," a Twitter representative said. "We intend to close the transaction and enforce the merger agreement at the agreed price and terms."
Musk has raised concerns that more than 5% of Twitter's monetizable daily active users are spam accounts, contrary to Twitter's estimates that it has disclosed. Musk has threatened to walk away from the deal if the company doesn't provide more data that would let him check the company's estimates.
The billionaire would need to find a big discrepancy in the data to get out of his agreement. The deal in place does include a specific performance clause, which means Twitter could ask a Delaware judge to order Musk to complete the deal if his financing is still available. Musk would need to prove a discrepancy about bots, or something else, had a "materially adverse effect" on the business, which is a high bar to clear.
Comments