A U.S. jury has found billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk liable for misleading investors during his controversial 2022 acquisition of Twitter, awarding billions of dollars in damages to affected shareholders.
The verdict followed a nearly three-week civil trial in San Francisco, where jurors examined whether Musk’s public statements influenced the company’s stock price in the months leading up to the $44 billion takeover. After four days of deliberation, the nine-member jury concluded that Musk misled investors through two tweets, including one that stated the deal was “temporarily on hold.”
However, the jury stopped short of finding that Musk engaged in a deliberate scheme to defraud investors. It also ruled that comments he made on a podcast constituted opinion rather than actionable misconduct.
The case stemmed from a class-action lawsuit filed by shareholders who claimed they suffered losses after selling their stock during a period of uncertainty triggered by Musk’s statements. Jurors awarded damages estimated at between $3 and $8 per share per day, amounting to roughly $2.6 billion in combined stock and options, according to plaintiffs’ lawyers.
Mark Molumphy, representing the investors, described the outcome as a significant victory for market accountability. “The verdict sends a strong message that no individual, regardless of wealth or influence, is above the law,” he said.
Musk’s legal team signaled plans to challenge the ruling, describing it as a temporary setback and expressing confidence in a successful appeal.
A central issue during the trial was Musk’s repeated claims that Twitter had underreported the number of fake and spam accounts on its platform. Musk argued that these discrepancies justified his attempt to withdraw from the deal, before ultimately proceeding with the acquisition at the original price following legal pressure.
Testimony during the trial included appearances from former Twitter executives, including ex-CEO Parag Agrawal and former CFO Ned Segal, alongside Musk himself, who defended his actions and maintained that he acted in the best interests of investors.
Legal analysts say the ruling highlights growing scrutiny over the influence of high-profile figures on financial markets, particularly through social media.
“This case underscores that when influential individuals move markets with their words, they can be held accountable for the consequences,” said legal expert Monte Mann.
The decision marks one of the most significant investor-related rulings involving a tech executive in recent years and could set a precedent for how courts assess the impact of public statements on market behavior.
