A nine-person jury in San Francisco has begun deliberating over whether or not Elon Musk’s tweets claiming he had the “funding secured” to take Tesla non-public price buyers billions of {dollars} in losses.

Representing “1000’s” of Tesla buyers within the class motion swimsuit, lead legal professional Nicholas Porritt framed the case as an vital take a look at of guidelines and laws for monetary markets and society extra broadly, throughout closing arguments earlier on Friday in federal court docket.

“Guidelines that apply to everybody else ought to apply to Elon Musk,” Porritt mentioned. “Elon Musk revealed tweets that have been false, with reckless disregard to the reality, and people tweets prompted buyers hurt. Plenty of hurt.”

He concluded: “All of company America is watching.”

Musk, who had taken the stand as a witness within the case, was current in court docket through the closing arguments following a three-week trial. The case centred on his August 7 2015 tweet declaring he was contemplating taking Tesla non-public at $420 a share and had funding secured to take action. It despatched the shares right into a spin, with Nasdaq quickly halting buying and selling within the electrical car firm because of volatility.

Through the trial, and once more through the plaintiff’s closing argument on Friday, jurors have been proven a chart detailing the leap in Tesla’s share worth within the fast aftermath of the contentious tweets. The inventory jumped to $379.57 on the day of Musk’s tweet, and later fell to $305.50 when it turned clear the go-private transfer wouldn’t occur.

Whereas Musk had held discussions with Saudi Arabian buyers to take the corporate non-public, no deal ever materialised. However defence legal professional Alex Spiro mentioned Musk had not misrepresented having funding, and that elevating the cash wanted was “not a problem”, since Musk’s shares in his firm SpaceX might have been used to cowl any shortfall if wanted.

Though Musk was critical about taking Tesla non-public, and will have tapped sufficient funding to take action, the corporate didn’t go non-public as a result of “shareholders needed to remain public”, Spiro instructed the jury.

“That was his motive — to do what was proper for the shareholders,” Spiro continued. “This was all the time for the shareholders.”

He added: “In the end, no matter you consider him, this isn’t the ‘dangerous tweeter’ trial. That is the ‘did this man commit fraud’ trial.”

Earlier within the trial Spiro mentioned the “funding secured” tweets have been a “split-second resolution” from Musk in response to an article the Monetary Occasions was making ready to publish about Saudi Arabia’s Public Funding Fund constructing a $2bn stake in Tesla. Musk mentioned he was involved information of the go-private talks would leak.

The court docket has instructed jurors that it’s to be assumed that Musk’s tweets have been false. At situation is whether or not the actions prompted materials hurt by misrepresenting the corporate’s place in a way that may immediate a “cheap investor” to purchase or promote Tesla inventory.

“When Elon tweets about Tesla, folks hear,” Porritt mentioned.

Jurors heard earlier within the trial from Glen Littleton, the lead plaintiff, that he interpreted the tweet to imply Tesla’s going non-public was “fully particular in my thoughts”.

One other investor, Tim Fries, purchased Tesla inventory at $380 believing the corporate would go non-public at $420, as Musk had recommended in his tweet. “I misplaced cash,” Fries instructed the jury, saying Musk’s tweet “gave me the arrogance” that his funding was a sound one.

Harvard Regulation Faculty professor Guhan Subramanian, testifying on behalf of plaintiffs, described Musk’s dealing with of the matter “incoherent” and an “excessive outlier” in company dealmaking.

If the jury finds both Musk, Tesla or its related board members liable, it might want to decide the extent of damages by way of a sequence of complicated calculations specified by directions from the court docket.

The “funding secured” tweet has already confirmed pricey for Musk. He and Tesla every paid $20mn to settle authorized motion from the Securities and Alternate Fee. Musk additionally needed to resign because the carmaker’s chair, though he saved his place as chief government.