1. They did, on the 08 June, something they didn't strictly have to do due to Musk waiving due diligence (see point below).1. So why don't they provide the data to demonstrate this?
You're misinformed on the subject. Bots are merely one of the issues the Twitter board has failed to address, others being, according to SEC filings:
2. "...failure to provide [a] including a working, bottoms-up financial model for 2022, a budget for 2022, an updated draft plan or budget, and a working copy of Goldman Sachs’ valuation model underlying its fairness opinion."
3. Oops! You've just contradicted your earlier point. Musk -- and the rest of planet Earth -- was obviously aware that bots existed. The "bot issue" Musk wanted to correct was their contribution to Tweet spam. The issue of whether or not they're counted into Twitter's daily average user base is a different one entirely.
Incorrect on every count. The original acquisition agreement did not "waive due diligence", and in fact specified several due diligence requests. From SEC filings:Musk waived business due diligence when he made the offer
1. They did, on the 08 June, something they didn't strictly have to do due to Musk waiving due diligence (see point below).
2. In an acquisition, you ask for this information during business due diligence. Musk waived business due diligence when he made the offer, ergo Twitter doesn't need to provide this information. Oops
3. No, the point is even if Musk can prove that % bots in the total username is greater than 5% he is doubly unlikely to be successful in winning a material breach argument in court because 1) Twitter never claimed that and 2) Musk has shown that he was aware of the problem and made the deal anyway.