His complaints don't hold merit because he entered into a binding agreement to buy Twitter after waiving due diligence rights. Zatko was fired in January. Musk had and waived his chance to discover these things. It's too late now.
Pop legal quiz - does "waving due diligence rights" during an acquisition remove the other party's liability for fraud they've committed against the prospective buyer?
"All multifarious means which human ingenuity can devise, and which are resorted to by one individual to get an advantage over another by false suggestions or suppression of the truth. It includes all surprises, tricks, cunning or dissembling, and any unfair way which another is cheated."
So is Musk guilty of defrauding twitter by using aggressive acquisition tactics as a pretense to get access to internal nonpublic information to use against them?
The only honest answer I can give there is, "I don't know". So far as I'm aware, Twitter hasn't alleged that, no evidence has been presented supporting such an allegation, and generally it seems a heavy burden to present a court with convincing evidence of a conspiratorial theory like that, but I can't categorically say what Elon Musk's motives weren't.
There seems to be the impression that "waiving due diligence" in an acquisition is some license for the seller to defraud the potential buyer without recourse.
If Mudge's allegations are true that Twitter has been defrauding the public in their reporting, failing to abide by the terms of a federal consent decree, and generally turning a blind eye to real problems to prop up their image, then "waived due diligence" or not, Musk has an out from the acquisition, and cause for a significant tort claim.
