Elon Musk's lawyers have subpoenaed Twitter whistleblower Peiter Zatko to appear on September 9 for a deposition; Zatko's lawyers say he will comply
Musk's lawyers also requested documentation about his complaint to federal regulators about the company's security holes
Washington PostCat Zakrzewski
Context & Ripple Effects
Musk's team had already arranged to question Zatko before his complaint became public, while using Zatko's bot-related allegations in a hearing over Twitter data. The subpoena formalizes a previously planned Zatko deposition and seeks the underlying security-complaint record.
Zatko's account was also headed for Senate Judiciary Committee testimony on alleged security failures. That creates parallel legal and public venues for claims Twitter had characterized separately from its spam-count estimates.
First-order effects
Musk's lawyers gain a compelled deposition and request documents tied to Zatko's federal-regulator complaint, giving their case a record beyond arguments over bot data.
Twitter must prepare to address Zatko's security allegations in the acquisition dispute as well as the bot-count questions Musk's lawyers had already raised.
Second-order effects
Zatko's scheduled Senate appearance puts the same allegations before lawmakers shortly after the deposition, increasing the public exposure of evidence contested in the deal fight.
Discovery pressure becomes reciprocal: Twitter's lawyers were later scheduled to depose Musk and his attorney, extending the dispute from platform metrics to sworn testimony by both sides.
Third-order effects
The case shows how a platform transaction dispute can turn internal claims about security and account-quality measurement into formal discovery and congressional scrutiny, rather than a private disagreement between buyer and seller.
The trend: High-stakes platform disputes are increasingly being fought through competing claims about the reliability, security, and disclosure of the systems underlying user and advertising metrics.
Twitter whistleblower lawyer @DebraKatzKBK says he will comply with Musk subpoena but adds, “He did not make his whistleblower disclosures to the appropriate governmental bodies to benefit Musk or harm Twitter, but rather to protect the American public and Twitter shareholders.”
“On Saturday, August 27, 2022, Mr. Zatko was served with a subpoena from Elon Musk compelling him to testify in a deposition in the Twitter v. Musk action. Mr. Zatko will comply with his legal obligations of that subpoena and his appearance at the deposition is involuntary.”
Juicy tidbit in today's story about Elon-Twitter. Twitter is escalating its fight with investor @DavidSacks - a member of Musk's inner circle. Twitter says discovery shows Sacks was lying when claiming he had no non-public info about the deal. https://www.washingtonpost.com/ ...
Musk has now added Twitter whistleblower Peiter Zatko's allegations as a reason he should be allowed to back out of buying the company. Here's the letter Musk's legal team sent: https://www.sec.gov/...
My very preliminary assessment is that it's pretty much as expected. Fraud, or alternatively failures bad enough to be an MAE. I take issue with literally how this letter reads Section 4.8 of the merger agreement, but since 4.8 is still covered by the MAE qualifier (right???) -
As expected after the whistleblower complaint: Elon Musk files another notice to terminate Twitter acquisition, citing additional reasons https://www.cnbc.com/...
that scene in the office where Michael puts on a straitjacket to escape from it but drops the key and jim covers it with his foot and Michael has to continue to pretend he's actually going to escape by magic https://www.bloomberg.com/...