insiderdeltaSEC filings, surfaced and scored

CoverageForm 410-K10-Q8-K13D13G13F

Twitter, Inc.

TWTRCIK 0001418091 · Every Form 4 filed by insiders at this issuer. See financials →

Annual report (10-K)

Latest 10-K filed Feb 16, 2022. Sentiment + YoY language diff vs prior year. Read sections →

Signal:Neutral

Risk Factors:tone -0.0330Δ+0.000187% similar+68/-65 ¶

MD&A:tone -0.0010Δ+0.000675% similar+71/-72 ¶

Sentiment via Loughran-McDonald lexicon · YoY diff via Jaccard similarity + paragraph set difference.

Top insiders

Most active reporters at Twitter, Inc.

Name	Roles	Filings
Agrawal Parag	OfficerDirector	4
Beykpour Kayvon	Officer	4
Falck Bruce	Officer	4
Pichette Patrick	Director	2
Alemayehou Mimi	Director	1

Showing 6-10 of 18

Per pagePrevPage 2 of 4Next

All filings

54 Form 4 / 4-A filings, newest first

Sign in to download

Filed		Top transaction	Shares	Price	Value

YoY shift: Neutral

Year-over-year tone shift - average net-tone change across Risk Factors and MD&A vs the prior 10-K. This filing is 0.03pp more bullish than last year's.

Why YoY instead of absolute: the LM lexicon has ~6.6× more negative words than positive (legal/risk-disclosure language is heavy on hedging), so every 10-K reads bearish on raw tone. Year-over-year change strips that bias and surfaces the actual shift in management's framing.

Tone shift by section

The two components the gauge averages: how Risk Factors and MD&A each shifted in net tone versus last year's 10-K. The headline above is their average, so a green needle over a soft section just means the other section carried it.

Risk Factors

+0.01pp

Flat

Net-tone change vs last year's 10-K.

MD&A

+0.06pp

Flat

Net-tone change vs last year's 10-K.

Per-snippet highlights

Sentence-level sentiment highlighting with category and subcategory filters is coming once the snippet-scoring pipeline lands. For now, dig into the actual section text on the Sections tab.

We calculate our mDAU using internal company data that has not been independently verified. While these numbers are based on what we believe to be reasonable calculations for the applicable period of measurement, there are inherent challenges in measuring mDAU and mDAU engagement. For example, there are a number of false or spam accounts in existence on our platform. We estimate that the average of false or spam accounts during the fourth quarter of 2021 continued to represent fewer than 5% of our mDAU during the quarter. However, this estimate is based on an internal review of a sample of accounts and we apply significant judgment in making this determination. As such, our estimation of false or spam accounts may not accurately represent the actual number of such accounts, and the actual number of false or spam accounts could be higher than we have currently estimated. We are continually seeking to improve our ability to estimate the total number of spam accounts and eliminate them from the calculation of our mDAU, but we otherwise treat multiple accounts held by a single person or organization as multiple accounts for purposes of calculating our mDAU because we permit people and organizations to have more than one account. Additionally, some accounts used by organizations are used by many people within the organization. As such, the calculations of our mDAU may not accurately reflect the actual number of people or organizations using our platform. We regularly review and may adjust our processes for calculating our internal metrics to improve their accuracy. Our measures of mDAU growth and engagement may differ from estimates published by third parties or from similarly-titled metrics of our competitors due to differences in methodology. If advertisers, content or platform partners or investors do not perceive our metrics to be accurate representations of our total accounts or mDAU engagement, or if we discover material inaccuracies in our metrics, our reputation may be harmed and content partners, advertisers and platform partners may be less willing to allocate their budgets or resources to our products and services, which could negatively affect our business and operating results. Further, as our business develops, we may revise or cease reporting metrics if we determine that such metrics are no longer accurate or appropriate measures of our performance. If investors, analysts or customers do not believe our reported measures, such as mDAU, are sufficient or accurately reflect our business, we may receive negative publicity and our operating results may be adversely impacted.

A significant natural disaster, such as the COVID-19 pandemic or an earthquake, fire, flood or significant power outage could have a material adverse impact on our business, operating results, and financial condition. For example, the COVID-19 pandemic led to certain business disruptions, including travel bans and restrictions, shelter-in-place orders and the postponement or cancellation of major events, which adversely affected demand for our advertising products and the economy as a whole, and which may have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition and operating results in the future. We have offices and a significant number of employees in the San Francisco Bay Area, a region known for seismic activity. Additionally, despite any precautions we may take, the occurrence of a natural disaster or other unanticipated problems at our data centers could result in lengthy interruptions in our services. In addition, our employees, offices, and infrastructure have recently been the subject of increased threats by extremists. Acts of terrorism and other geo-political unrest could cause disruptions in our business. All of the aforementioned risks may be further increased if our disaster recovery plans prove to be inadequate. We have implemented a disaster recovery program, which allows us to move production to a back-up data center in the event of a catastrophe. Although this program is functional, we do not currently serve network traffic equally from each data center, so if our primary data center shuts down, there will be a period of time that our products or services, or certain of our products or services, will remain inaccessible or people may experience severe issues accessing our products and services. We do not carry business interruption insurance sufficient to compensate us for the potentially significant losses, including the potential harm to our business that may result from interruptions in our ability to provide our products and services. Any such natural disaster or man-made problem could adversely impact our business, financial condition and operating results.

Our Innovator’s Patent Agreement, or IPA, also can limit our ability to prevent infringement of our patents. In May 2013, we implemented the IPA, which we enter into with our employees and consultants, including our founders. The IPA, which applies to our current and future patents, allows us to assert our patents defensively. The IPA also allows us to assert our patents offensively with the permission of the inventors of the applicable patent. Under the IPA, an assertion of claims is considered to be for a defensive purpose if the claims are asserted: (i) against an entity that has filed, maintained, threatened or voluntarily participated in a patent infringement lawsuit against us or any people on Twitter, or any of our affiliates, customers, suppliers or distributors; (ii) against an entity that has used its patents offensively against any other party in the past ten years, so long as the entity has not instituted the patent infringement lawsuit defensively in response to a patent litigation threat against the entity; or (iii) otherwise to deter a patent litigation threat against us or people on Twitter, or any of our affiliates, customers, suppliers or distributors. In addition, the IPA provides that the above limitations apply to any future owner or exclusive licensee of any of our patents, which could limit our ability to sell or license our patents to third parties. In this case, while we may be able to claim protection of our intellectual property under other rights (such as trade secrets or contractual obligations with our employees not to disclose or use confidential information), we may be unable to assert our patent rights against third parties that we believe are infringing our patents, even if such third parties are developing products and services that compete with our products and services. For example, in the event that an inventor of one of our patents goes to work for another company and that company uses the inventor’s patented invention to compete with us, we would not be able to assert that patent against such other company unless the assertion of the patent right is for a defensive purpose since it would be unlikely the employee would consent to offensive use of the patent against his or her current employer. In such event, we would need to rely on trade secret protection or the contractual obligation of the inventor to us not to disclose or use our confidential information. In addition, the terms of the IPA could affect our ability to monetize our intellectual property portfolio.

We presently are involved in a number of intellectual property lawsuits, and as we face increasing competition and develop new products, the number of patent and other intellectual property claims against us may grow. There may be intellectual property or other rights held by others, including issued or pending patents, that cover significant aspects of our products and services, and we cannot be sure that we are not infringing or violating, and have not infringed or violated, any third-party intellectual property rights or that we will not be held to have done so or be accused of doing so in the future. Any claim or litigation alleging that we have infringed or otherwise violated intellectual property or other rights of third parties, with or without merit, and whether or not settled out of court or determined in our favor, could be time-consuming and costly to address and resolve, and could divert the time and attention of our management and technical personnel. Some of our competitors have substantially greater resources than we do and are able to sustain the costs of complex intellectual property litigation to a greater degree and for longer periods of time than we could. The outcome of any litigation is inherently uncertain, and there can be no assurances that favorable final outcomes will be obtained in all cases. In addition, plaintiffs may seek, and we may become subject to, preliminary or provisional rulings in the course of any such litigation, including potential preliminary injunctions requiring us to cease some or all of our operations. We may decide to settle such lawsuits and disputes on terms that are unfavorable to us. Similarly, if any litigation to which we are a party is resolved adversely, we may be subject to an unfavorable judgment that may not be reversed upon appeal. The terms of such a settlement or judgment may require us to cease some or all of our operations or pay substantial amounts to the other party. In addition, we may have to seek a license to continue practices found to be in violation of a third-party’s rights. If we are required, or choose to enter into royalty or licensing arrangements, such arrangements may not be available on reasonable terms, or at all, and may significantly increase our operating costs and expenses. As a result, we may also be required to develop or procure alternative non-infringing technology, which could require significant effort and expense or discontinue use of the technology. An unfavorable resolution of the disputes and litigation referred to above would adversely impact our business, financial condition and operating results.

From time to time, governments, regulators and others have expressed concerns about whether our products, services or practices compromise the privacy or data protection rights of the people on Twitter and others. While we strive to comply with applicable laws and regulations relating to privacy, data protection and cybersecurity, our privacy policies and other obligations we may have with respect to privacy, data protection and cybersecurity, the failure or perceived failure to comply may result, and in some cases has resulted, in inquiries and other proceedings or actions against us by governments, regulators or others. A number of proposals have recently been adopted or are currently pending before federal, state and foreign legislative and regulatory bodies that could significantly affect our business. For example, the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) requires, among other things, covered companies to provide disclosures to California consumers and afford such consumers the ability to opt-out of certain sales of personal information. Similar legislation has been proposed or adopted in other states. Additionally, the California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA) created obligations relating to consumer data beginning on January 1, 2022, with implementing regulations expected on or before July 1, 2022, and enforcement beginning July 1, 2023. On March 2, 2021, Virginia enacted the Virginia Consumer Data Protection Act, or CDPA, a comprehensive privacy statute that becomes effective on January 1, 2023, and on June 8, 2021, Colorado enacted the Colorado Privacy Act, or CPA, which takes effect on July 1, 2023. The CDPA and CPA share similarities with the CCPA, CPRA, and legislation proposed in other states. Aspects of the CCPA, the CPRA and these other state laws and regulations, as well as their enforcement, remain unclear, and we may be required to modify our practices in an effort to comply with them. Moreover, foreign data protection, privacy, cybersecurity, and other laws and regulations are often more restrictive or burdensome than those in the United States. For example, the GDPR imposes stringent operational requirements for entities processing personal information and significant penalties for non-compliance, including fines of up to €20 million or 4% of total worldwide revenue, whichever is higher. Additionally, we have historically relied upon a variety of legal bases to transfer certain personal information outside of the European Economic Area (EEA), including the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield Framework, the Swiss-U.S. Privacy Shield Framework, and EU Standard Contractual Clauses (SCCs). These legal bases all have been, and may be, the subject of legal challenges and on July 16, 2020, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) invalidated the U.S.-EU Privacy Shield framework and imposed additional obligations on companies when relying on the SCCs. The Swiss-U.S. Privacy Shield framework subsequently was invalidated by the Swiss Federal Data Protection and Information Commissioner. These developments may result in different EEA data protection regulators applying differing standards for, or require ad hoc verification of measures taken with respect to, certain data flows. The CJEU’s decision, the European Commission’s issuance of new SCCs in June 2021, the use of which was required in connection with new contracts and new personal data processing operations as of September 27, 2021, continued guidance from the European Commission and European Data Protection Board (EDPB) , and other developments with regard to cross-border data transfers may require us to take additional steps to legitimize impacted personal data transfers, and we may find it necessary or desirable to modify our data handling practices in connection with these or future legal challenges or other developments relating to cross-border data transfers. This could result in additional contractual negotiations and increased costs of compliance and limitations on our customers, vendors, and us. This CJEU decision and related developments, or future legal challenges or other developments, also could result in us being required to implement duplicative, and potentially expensive, information technology infrastructure and business operations in Europe or could limit our ability to collect or process personal information in Europe, and may serve as a basis for our personal data handling practices, or those of our customers and vendors, to be challenged. Moreover, the GDPR and other similar regulations require companies to give specific types of notice and in some cases seek consent from consumers and other data subjects before collecting or using their data for certain purposes, including some marketing activities. In addition to the GDPR, the European Commission has another draft regulation in the approval process that focuses on a person’s right to conduct a private life. The proposed legislation, known as the Regulation of Privacy and Electronic Communications (ePrivacy Regulation), would replace the current ePrivacy Directive. Originally planned to be adopted and implemented at the same time as the GDPR, the ePrivacy Regulation is still being negotiated. Most recently, on February 10, 2021, the Council of the EU agreed on its version of the draft ePrivacy Regulation. If adopted, the earliest date for entry into force is in 2023, with broad potential impacts on the use of internet-based services and tracking technologies, such as cookies. Aspects of the ePrivacy Regulation remain for negotiation between the European Commission and the Council. Any of these changes or other developments with respect to EU data protection law could disrupt our business and otherwise adversely impact our business, financial condition and operating results.

Additionally, we have relationships with third parties that perform a variety of functions such as payments processing, tokenization, vaulting, currency conversion, fraud prevention and cybersecurity audits. The laws and regulations related to online payments and other activities of these third parties, including those relating to the processing of data, are complex, subject to change, and vary across different jurisdictions in the United States and globally. As a result, we may be required to spend significant time, effort and expense to comply with applicable laws and regulations. Any failure or claim of our failure to comply, or any failure or claim of failure by the above-mentioned third parties to comply, could increase our costs or could result in liabilities. Additionally, because we accept payment via credit cards, we are subject to global payments industry operating rules and certification requirements governed by the PCI Security Standards Council, including the Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard. Any failure by us to comply with these operating rules and certification requirements also may result in costs and liabilities and may result in us losing our ability to accept certain payment cards. We recently announced new subscription and paid features on Twitter. Depending on how these products and features evolve, we may also be subject to other laws and regulations related to online payments, money transmission, prepaid access, electronic fund transfers or other financial laws or regulations, and we may need to register as a money services business with the U.S. Treasury Department and obtain state money transmitter licenses in the United States and an Electronic Money (E-money) license in the EEA to permit us to conduct certain activities. These licenses and other legal requirements will generally require us to demonstrate compliance with many domestic and foreign laws in these areas, including anti-money laundering, counter-terrorist financing, government sanctions, cybersecurity, privacy, and consumer protection laws, and failure to do so may limit our ability to offer these products and features as they evolve.

We have faced and will continue to face claims relating to content that is published or made available through our products and services or third-party products or services. In particular, the nature of our business exposes us to claims related to defamation, intellectual property rights, rights of publicity and privacy, illegal content, misinformation, content regulation and personal injury torts. The laws relating to the liability of providers of online products or services for activities of the people who use them remains somewhat unsettled, both within the United States and internationally. For example, there are various Executive and Congressional efforts to restrict the scope of the protections from legal liability for content moderation decisions and third-party content posted on online platforms that are currently available to online platforms under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, and our current protections from liability for content moderation decisions and third-party content posted on our platform in the United States could decrease or change, potentially resulting in increased liability for content moderation decisions and third-party content posted on our platform and higher litigation costs. This risk may be enhanced in certain jurisdictions outside the United States where we may be less protected under local laws than we are in the United States. For example, we are subject to legislation in Germany that may impose significant fines for failure to comply with certain content removal and disclosure obligations. Other countries, including Brazil, Turkey, Singapore, India, Australia, and the United Kingdom, have implemented or are considering similar legislation imposing penalties for failure to remove certain types of content. In addition, the public nature of communications on our platform exposes us to risks arising from the creation of impersonation accounts intended to be attributed to people on Twitter or our advertisers. We could incur significant costs investigating and defending these claims. If we incur material costs or liability as a result of these occurrences, our business, financial condition and operating results would be adversely impacted.