Hide Two days left! Support our fundraiser by January 5th and get the first Techdirt Commemorative Coin »

Twitter’s ‘Cost Cutting By Not Paying Bills’ Now Going To Increase Legal Fees

from the how-to-destroy-a-company dept

It’s no secret that Elon Musk is desperately trying to cut costs at Twitter, the company he overpaid for and saddled with approximately an extra billion dollars a year in interest payments by leveraging the buyout. He’s cut staff somewhere around 75% and we still keep hearing rumors of further cuts. He’s turning off data centers as well. Though, as part of all this, he’s also driven away a huge percentage of Twitter’s revenue, as well as any sort of momentum towards growth.

A month ago, the NY Times noted that one of Musk’s cost savings techniques appeared to be to just stop paying Twitter’s bills.

To cut costs, Twitter has not paid rent for its San Francisco headquarters or any of its global offices for weeks, three people close to the company said. Twitter has also refused to pay a $197,725 bill for private charter flights made the week of Mr. Musk’s takeover, according to a copy of a lawsuit filed in New Hampshire District Court and obtained by The New York Times.

There are also a bunch of other stories about not paying law firms and a variety of other vendors as well. Last week there were more details on the “data center closure” order from Musk which, as we had heard rumored, was done haphazardly with little advance planning or care.

Elon Musk’s orders were clear: Close the data center.

Early on Christmas Eve, members of the billionaire’s staff flew to Sacramento — the site of one of Twitter’s three main computing storage facilities — to disconnect servers that had kept the social network running smoothly. Some employees were worried that losing those servers could cause problems, but saving money was the priority, according to two people who were familiar with the move but not authorized to talk about it.

Of course, for most people, not paying your bills is not seen as a “cost cutting” move, it’s called ruining your credit and risking all sorts of downstream problems. I guess when you’re filthy stinking rich (even if you’ve lost more money than anyone ever in history), it’s called “renegotiating.”

But I do wonder if this kind of “cost cutting” may come with a lot more additional costs than someone like Musk has realized. We’ve already talked about the very real threats from the FTC and the EU cracking down on Twitter for violating various laws and agreements. Those can come with massive fines.

But also, all this “cost cutting by not paying the bills” seems to be turning into lawsuits. Twitter is closing down its offices in Seattle entirely, as it’s facing eviction for not paying rent. The few remaining employees were apparently told to work from home, which is at least mildly amusing coming less than two months after Musk gave everyone an ultimatum to return to the office immediately.

But now there’s at least one landlord who is suing. Columbia REIT, which manages 650 California in San Francisco, is suing the company for unpaid rent. This is not Twitter’s headquarters (where it’s also been reported the company is not paying rent) at 1355 Market Street. Rather this was some office space that Twitter took over when it purchased mobile advertising tech firm CrossInstall in 2020. That deal came with the lease on CrossInstall’s offices at 650 California St. Rather than actually use the space, Twitter apparently has been subletting it out to Dentsu, but Twitter is still responsible for the rent.

From the documents, it appears that Dentsu pays Twitter slightly less than what Twitter has to pay the REIT for the space. So, based on this, it is possible that not only is Twitter not paying the rent, which may screw over Dentsu, but it may be taking the money from Dentsu in the meantime.

Still, I imagine these types of lawsuits are going to start to add up, and the legal bills associated with them may start to be even more costly than, you know, paying for the basic things Twitter promised to pay for. Musk may think he can get away with that by also not paying the lawyers, but there are few professions I know of that get more pissed off about being stiffed on bills than lawyers.

He’s Elon Musk, so maybe he’ll get out of all of this as well, but it still strikes me that there was always a less costly way to do this: don’t immediately fire everyone, spend some time figuring out where you can cut costs, put in place some real effort to retain existing revenue, and then work on ways to renegotiate other contracts while still paying your bills.

Otherwise, this “just not paying any bills” and having to sort it out in court almost feels like a non-bankruptcy bankruptcy, but without any of the protections and orderly process of an actual bankruptcy. It seems like a ridiculously costly way to “cut costs.”

Filed Under: , , ,
Companies: columbia reit, twitter

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Twitter’s ‘Cost Cutting By Not Paying Bills’ Now Going To Increase Legal Fees”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
60 Comments

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

No, they haven’t

Brett Rosenau was killed by cops for being in the same house as a suspect. Aiyana Jones was shot by a SWAT team while she was sleeping on the couch. Daunte Wright was killed by a cop who mixed up her taser and gun.

Which one of them did something that warranted lethal force?

but why do you people have to make EVERYTHING about race? It’s pathetic.

Why do you have to lie?

Samuel Abram (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

Brett Rosenau was killed by cops for being in the same house as a suspect. Aiyana Jones was shot by a SWAT team while she was sleeping on the couch. Daunte Wright was killed by a cop who mixed up her taser and gun.

I would say you’re just scratching the surface of the tip of the iceberg there. Thank you for your reply to the dumbass who replied to me.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3

none of them their crime (or proximity to a crime) was “contested a bill”

Yes, that was the point of the OP comment in this specific thread: People of color have been killed for lesser “crimes” than “not paying a bill”, and Musk will never face that kind of violence himself because he’s a rich white guy.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

"anonymous sources"......

Yeah, we’ve had about 4 years of that nonsense at this point, and it turns out they were rarely if ever true. Indeed it often seems to be literally just journalists making shit up to smear people they don’t like. (y’know, like you do, Mike!) Anyway a company has a right to dispute bills and there’s a court process for that. I would think Musk knows what he’s doing.

Where’s your fucking Mea Culpa, Maznick? You were wrong about censorship at Twitter. It was, provably directed by the government. Heck just yesterday we learn that that House committee’s were badgering twitter to make sure they followed the FBI’s “suggestions”.

But you’d rather spread petty gossip about unpaid bills than admit you were fucking wrong.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Samuel Abram (profile) says:

Re:

But you’d rather spread petty gossip about unpaid bills than admit you were fucking wrong.

Mike Masnick has definitely admitted he was wrong, but not in the way you think. He wanted Twitter to succeed, after all. When it became clear that Musk was creating the most recent popcorn-worthy events until what is happening now in the US House (and unlike that nonsense, what Musk is doing is entirely within Masnick’s wheelhouse), Mike started changing his opinions. Not because he was shilling for Mastodon (because if Mike were on the take, Twitter would make more sense considering Elon’s billions), but because of his principles vis-à-vis the internet and free speech in general. At least on Mastodon the people who are annoying can still say what they want even if it’s vile and repulsive (Truth Social is a Mastodon Instance, after all), it’s just that we don’t have to hear any of it.

And I’m perfectly fine with that!

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re:

You make yourself all too clear — this is about tribal partisanship for you, and nothing to do with facts and logic. You just hate “the deplorables”. Well, we hate you too.

YOUR SIDE LIKES CENSORSHIP. It is fascist af.

And I know you will never admit it, but Musk is very much winning.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

this is about tribal partisanship for you, and nothing to do with facts and logic

…says the guy who whines about liberals and keeps making arguments that facts and logic don’t ever seem to back up.

Also: Defederation isn’t, wasn’t, and will never be censorship because no one owes bigots an audience for their bullshit. The right to free speech doesn’t give anyone the right to free reach.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 'If I can't shout Hail Satan repeatedly in a church I have been censored!'

Also: Defederation isn’t, wasn’t, and will never be censorship because no one owes bigots an audience for their bullshit. The right to free speech doesn’t give anyone the right to free reach.

It’s telling that so often in order to make the ‘I have been censored!’ argument the definition has been stretched to include ‘Someone didn’t want to listen to me/I wasn’t allowed to use private property to speak from against the owner’s wishes.’

When ‘censorship’ has reached the point that ‘not being allowed to force your way into groups and/or property where it’s been made clear you’re not welcome’ is part of the definition it’s well past time to admit that either the word is useless since it’s so broad or the ones screaming it the loudest are the ones who understand what it means the least.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Wyrm (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Republicans vs the meaning of words

That’s one of the recurring problems with conservatives.
They don’t care what words mean.
They use words for the feelings they invoke rather than their actual definition.

My top 3:

  • “Censorship” is when anyone doesn’t publish their speech. Even when it doesn’t involve the government at all.
  • “Communism” is basically anything they don’t like in politics. Including one case of renaming capitalism as “corporate communism” when they recognized a problem with capitalism but they couldn’t bring themselves to denounce it honestly.
  • “Freedom of religion” is actually freedom of being a christian. But it sounds better and more constitutional. They basically always use this term as a defense for actually shoving their religion down others’ throats, so bonus point for using it as the exact opposite of what it means.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3

When ‘censorship’ has reached the point that ‘not being allowed to force your way into groups and/or property where it’s been made clear you’re not welcome’ is part of the definition

We’re already there. But now that we’re there, we enter the next phase of the perpetual victim complex – what happens when the whiners get what they want, and the others just leave?

They’re looking to keep the bitching alive somehow, now that they’ve made Twitter a shithole.

Like a floundering cod gasping in agony for confrontation.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4

We’re already there. But now that we’re there, we enter the next phase of the perpetual victim complex – what happens when the whiners get what they want, and the others just leave?

Same thing they’ve been doing this while time really, find out where the non-assholes have gone off to and try to force their way into wherever that is however they can, whether that involves avalanches of whining about being ‘censored’ for facing consequences for their words and deeds, legal action for being shown the door and/or attempted legislative action to make it so that platforms aren’t allowed to refuse to host them.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
This comment has been deemed funny by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

I would think Musk knows what he’s doing.

Short sellers would disagree.

Where’s your fucking Mea Culpa, Maznick? You were wrong about censorship at Twitter. It was, provably directed by the government.

Twitter: “Our rules disallow voting disinformation.”

FBI: “Hey, these people are posting voting disinformation on Twitter and possibly breaking your rules.”

Twitter: “We’ll look into it and decide how to handle it.”

You: “ThAt’s GoVeRnMeNt CeNsOrShIp!”

Twitter: “Our rules disallow revenge porn.”

Biden’s Non-Governmental Campaign Team: “Hey, conservatives are posting Hunter’s dick pics.”

Twitter: “Yeah, that’s against the rules.”

You: “BuT i WaNt To SeE hUnTeR’S dIcK pIcS oN tWiTtEr!”

You wouldn’t recognize government censorship if it prior restrained your ass.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re:

Literally all the short sellers are poorer than Elon Musk.

The fact of the matter is that electric vehicles are bunk and the whole market was driven on subsidies (which have dried up) and unworkable CA requirements that are assured to be repealed. That has little to do with Musk, but it is an excellent bit of cherry-picking on your part.

Yeah man, the FBI giving a list of accounts to ban, no matter how justified you might think it is (get fucked) is absolutely government directed censorship. Legally. In every way. No, it seriously does not matter they that they didn’t say “or else”…..but a house committee and several other agencies did follow up to make sure the bans happened, so the “or else” part was pretty clear, actually, which again, not a requirement for it to be illegal as fuck.

Seriously, just the dumbest fucking comment.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

So where are those implied FBI threats, and why are those threats not working since old Twitter didn’t even manage to take action on, oh, I dunno, at least half of those accounts?

Then again, you wouldn’t care if the government actually did censorship, because you’d be at the forefront GLEEFULLY “censoring” people.

And by that I mean murdering them.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

the FBI giving a list of accounts to ban, no matter how justified you might think it is (get fucked) is absolutely government directed censorship

The FBI only pointed out accounts that could’ve been in violation of Twitter’s TOS. The FBI never demanded those accounts be banned; it even said Twitter could refuse to take action if the company deemed such inaction to be “appropriate”. Twitter refused to take action on more than half of the requests submitted by the government; it was never punished for those refusals. And I want to note that this is all common knowledge now, since this information comes largely from the “Twitter Files”. You haven’t offered any evidence that contradicts those documents. If you have it, now is the time to show it.

And speaking of evidence…

a house committee and several other agencies did follow up to make sure the bans happened

[citation needed]

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

The fact of the matter is that electric vehicles are bunk and the whole market was driven on subsidies (which have dried up) and unworkable CA requirements that are assured to be repealed

I thought you said that Elon Musk was a genius who knew what he was doing? Now it turns out the most successful initiative that he built his reputation on was bunk all along? Didn’t you base your argument for Musk on the fact that he knows how to run companies and is a blessing on every company he touches?

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

Literally all the short sellers are poorer than Elon Musk.

You don’t know if Bernard Arnault is short selling Tesla or not, so that’s a possibly incorrect statement as well as lazy reasoning. Wealth isn’t intelligence or competence.

The fact of the matter is that electric vehicles are bunk and the whole market was driven on subsidies (which have dried up) and unworkable CA requirements that are assured to be repealed. That has little to do with Musk, but it is an excellent bit of cherry-picking on your part.

Sure, man. I appreciate you completely undermining your argument. Musk is supposedly a genius but the primary source of his wealth is bunk and overinflated stock price. That’s a great way of showing he doesn’t have to know what he’s doing.

Yeah man, the FBI giving a list of accounts to ban,

Except they didn’t. We already covered this. I literally quoted the FBI for you in a previous article. They didn’t suggest any action. They literally just mentioned that the accounts were possibly violating Twitter rules. And you said it was still government commands and I asked for a citation of the law and then Mike shit down your poor understanding of the case history. Yet you keep making these bullshit arguments.

no matter how justified you might think it is (get fucked)

Voter disinformation is anti-democratic. You can get fucked if you think it’s okay to disenfranchise voters.

is absolutely government directed censorship. Legally.

CITE THE LAW AND THE CASE HISTORY.

In every way.

Your law degree from YouTube isn’t valid.

No, it seriously does not matter they that they didn’t say “or else”…..but a house committee and several other agencies did follow up to make sure the bans happened, so the “or else” part was pretty clear,

It was supposedly pretty clear, yet Twitter employs A) didn’t ban the accounts B) didn’t feel it was an illegal command from the government C) Twitter actively solicits rule violation notices from anyone.

Seriously, just the dumbest fucking comment.

Coming from you, that seems to be high praise.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

Anyway a company has a right to dispute bills and there’s a court process for that.

There’s disputing bills that you have to pay, and then there’s just telling people who you owe money to to go pound sand. Which is not how civilized folk settle their affairs.

I would think Musk knows what he’s doing.

Musk has been consistently firing the people doing the essential functions of a business – functions that CEOs as a rule don’t do, and functions for which they hire people, because they lack the experience, time and patience to do it themselves. This isn’t a knock on Musk’s ability, it’s just reality. He might be a leader, but it’s unlikely he has an in-depth knowledge on how people get paid. And now he’s fired most of the people keeping that vital organizational infrastructure in place.

It was, provably directed by the government.

When did this happen? Genuinely curious about this. Because if it happened during 2017 to 2020, the leftists weren’t in charge of the government at that time.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Violet Aubergine (profile) says:

Re: Lawjick !0!

If you’re claims of censorship were legitimate there’s a small army of right wing lawyers who’d be filing lawsuits seeking remedy in an effort to make their legal names. There’s dozens of billionaire conservatives, who actually know how to at least run a business as opposed to running it into the ground, that’d happily fund such lawsuits even if there was only a one in a hundred chance of winning. So continue jerking off as your broken record plays, we can all use a good laugh in these twisted times.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

How long until the banks or whoever send in shock troops and take over?

The “shock troops” would be sheriffs. When a person is owed money, a court will sometimes authorize them to go with a sheriff and seize enough property to cover the debt. Like, walk into the datacenter and pick some nice-looking servers. Big companies that have been dragging their feet for months will often issue a check really quickly when these people show up.

Anonymous Coward says:

Of course, for most people, not paying your bills is not seen as a “cost cutting” move

Although they probably won’t admit it, many people do see it that way. I’ve written programs to go through the accounts receivable and send “dunning letters” to people (and corporations) with past-due debts. And there’s an entire industry that profits by helping people out of such self-imposed debt trouble, nevermind all the products and services for people with terrible credit history.

When money’s tight, many people just stop paying their recurring bills. Look up the history of coin-operated electricity meters in the UK, for example.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

When money’s tight, many people just stop paying their recurring bills.

According to my landlord, by the way, this happens in a major way with rent (residential and commercial). They said I was a good tenant because they never had to chase me down for money, even during COVID, and I said that seems like a pretty low standard… apparently, I’d be shocked to see how much rent is outstanding and how much time is spent collecting. Especially when the courts are way behind on eviction hearings and the bad tenants know it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

There is a hidden problem with the company that is doing the subletting.
Dentsu is one of the biggest advertising agencies in the world with the HQ in Japan (Where their market share is something around a quarter of the ad market). And it might not be well liked but it is fairly well known in Japan. Japan being the country listed as second based on absolute number of users (with around 60 million it is above the total for the EU) and number one when it comes to percentage of the population using Twitter (45%-50% of the population).

This is possibly a PR disaster for Twitter in one of their most important markets. In addition to risking the relationship with one of the bigger aggregate buyers of ad space online.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

JP Twitter is hoping Elon does not fuck it up.

I am hoping that I can tell JP Twitter (or, at least, the communities I am nominally a part of) how to make the move to Mastodon or Nostr…

A lot of JP (and Chinese) Mobile games use Twitter as both an option for account tethering/login and advertising. Plenty of individuals also use Twitter as their main social media to promote their services.

While I hope Elon does not add Japan to the list of angry markets demanding an explanation of why Elon has turned Twitter into a shithole, the writung is sadly on the wall and even Japan knows.

Arijirija says:

Recently while attempting to post on Twitter, I found my first post not only took an unconscionable time to get published, it never cleared server memory, so that I wound up posting encouragement to Ilhan Omar on her re-election in reply to a post by Hananya Naftali who’s an Israeli Hasbara (propaganda) dude (and who hates her guts). I found it hard to stop laughing after that. So much for Elon Musk knowing technical stuff.

You get what you pay for, and he’s not paying anything if he can get away with it, so if like me, you’re on Twitter, you’re not getting much, if anything.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Mixed feelings there

As funny as it is to see someone else dogpiling on I worry that Twitter’s legal response to the lawsuit will be rather lacking due to not wanting to spend the money to truly fight back and not having the resources to do so even if they did, potentially leading to a legal ruling that will just make things worse for everyone.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Get all our posts in your inbox with the Techdirt Daily Newsletter!

We don’t spam. Read our privacy policy for more info.

Ctrl-Alt-Speech

A weekly news podcast from
Mike Masnick & Ben Whitelaw

Subscribe now to Ctrl-Alt-Speech »
Techdirt needs your support! Get the first Techdirt Commemorative Coin with donations of $100
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...