New York (CNN Enterprise)Elon Musk’s authorized staff on Friday made public its official response to Twitter’s lawsuit trying to power him to finish their $44 billion acquisition deal.

Within the reply to Twitter’s criticism, which incorporates counter-claims towards the corporate, Musk’s staff makes an attempt to refute the corporate’s allegations that the Tesla CEO is unjustly attempting to exit the deal. His staff 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.

Musk’s response, which was filed publicly on Friday, states that the billionaire’s staff performed an evaluation of faux and spam accounts on the platform utilizing knowledge offered by Twitter’s “firehose” of tweets and a public device referred to as Botometer created by researchers on the College of Indiana. It didn’t additional element the method of that analysis and added that its evaluation was “constrained” by an absence of time and data from Twitter.

    Based mostly 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 pretend bot accounts make up lower than 5% of its mDAU.)

      Twitter subpoenas Elon Musk's associates as legal battle heats up

      Twitter has repeatedly denied Musk’s claims concerning the prevalence of spam bots on the platform. Twitter Board Chair Bret Taylor tweeted on Thursday night a hyperlink to the corporate’s response to his reply and counterclaims. (Musk’s staff had filed a confidential model of the reply final week to provide Twitter (TWTR) time to evaluate it for firm data that ought to be redacted, earlier than making it publicly obtainable Friday.) Taylor referred to as Musk’s claims “factually inaccurate, legally inadequate, and commercially irrelevant.”

      In its response, Twitter takes problem with Musk’s evaluation of spam bots, saying that the “firehose” of knowledge he used “displays many Twitter accounts that aren’t included in mDAU” and that the Botometer device he used depends on a unique 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 provides a preview of the arguments both sides will make when the case goes to trial, assuming they do not conform to a settlement first. A five-day trial is about to kick off on October 17, after Twitter had pressed to expedite the proceedings.

        Musk final month moved to terminate his settlement to purchase Twitter, accusing the corporate of breaching the deal by making deceptive statements concerning the variety of bot accounts on its platform and withholding data that he claims may assist him consider the difficulty. Days later, Twitter filed a lawsuit towards the billionaire, alleging that he’d violated the settlement and asking a courtroom to compel him to observe by way of with the deal.

        Along with doubling down on considerations about bot accounts, Musk’s responses additionally criticized Twitter’s use of monetizable day by day energetic customers, a metric Twitter publicly experiences to advertisers and shareholders to signify its progress.

        Musk claims that his evaluations present solely a small portion of the customers Twitter considers mDAU really generate vital income for the corporate by viewing and interesting with commercials, alleging that the measure just isn’t really 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 rely, 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 fully 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 govt compensation construction is predicated partly on mDAU.

        The trial between Twitter and Elon Musk now has a date

        In its reply, Musk’s staff explains that the billionaire is worried with the spam bot problem as a result of “transitioning customers who don’t generate any income into extra energetic customers … is not any straightforward job.” Musk’s staff provides: “An organization centered on including these energetic customers would make investments substantial sources in the direction of attempting to enhance Twitter to maximise engagement, corresponding to by successfully focusing on spam or false accounts.”

        Twitter mentioned in its response to Musk’s counterclaims that its mDAU rely has by no means purported to indicate what number of customers generate vital income by interacting with advertisements, however quite exhibits the variety of actual customers who might be monetized by being proven advertisements. 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 just isn’t, 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 workers 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 staff wouldn’t file the general public reply early so they’d have sufficient time to evaluate 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 share of spam accounts on our platform,” Edgett mentioned within the letter.

          Supply [source_domain]