I can sympathize. The "new media" enjoy the ambiguity of often being in "unexplored legal territory".  Clearly the greater issues of the day are not what may be done, but what may be done legally. 

The frontier of digital media (including socialist media) is how the law will decide disputes between players. Since there are no precedents to guide (in many cases) jurists face the challenge of having to blaze a trail with their decisions. 

It all gets lost in the weeds of legalisms (never my strong point) so I can't speak intelligently to outcome. 

If I were Musk of couse, I'd have concerns about paying so much for a commodity such as a digital communications platform which has a history of generating a revenue stream but which may also ostensibly dry up as rapidly as it arose. 

There is so much government and therefore political gamesmanship involved with regulatory/bureaucratic/activist- judicial powers being wielded by grotesquely corrupt 'Crats these days, almost literally anything is possible.

Since $1 billion is an affordable penalty for Musk there does not seem to be a whole lot of drama in connection to this at least as far as he is concerned. Worst scenario he gives up the cash and moves on - with a lesson learned about how what were once investments are now speculations.