Twitter may well have been grossly lying all these years, but the time to figure that out is before you sign the deal. That's kinda the point of doing due diligence.
Specifically, the merger agreement requires "all information concerning the business ... of the Company ... for any reasonable business purpose related to the consummation of the transactions".
Seems like an arbitrary API rate limit could easily violate this clause. How are you providing "all information [...] requested" if you drip feed it?
The fact they'd even play cloak-and-dagger with this information suggests there's fraud again. Companies with nothing to hide don't mislead acquirers.
Not to mention that your theory of Twitter behaving fraudulently in the context of this transaction makes no sense. They've got a commitment to purchase them at vastly more than their market value, so they're highly motivated to see the deal close. What's the incentive for acting in bad faith?
As a thought experiment, if 50% of Twitter's claimed MAUs were bots, it would absolutely be material.
Given Twitter has a history of lying about this exact metric, under what basis do you believe that the bot issue isn't material? Blind trust in the same company that lied about it before?
I'm trying to understand why people trust the company that was caught lying to investors about the very subject they were lying about. Where do you get this trust?