> Twitter knows that these employees previously worked at Twitter; that these employees had and continue to have access to Twitter’s trade secrets [...]

This sentence is clearly trying to establish liability by accusing Meta of wilful infringement of Twitter’s rights (i.e. it acted in full knowledge of these fact, even though they may lead to violation of the employees’ restrictive covenants, etc.), as evidenced by the context and indeed the rest of the letter.

As such, the first instance of “Twitter” is surely a mistake; shouldn’t it say “Meta”? This would make sense given the next sentence (“With that knowledge, Meta [...]”).

As this is supposedly from such a large law firm, I’m amazed a mistake like this could slip through; it completely changes the meaning of the entire sentence, even if the intent is recoverable from context.

Does no one proofread Letters before Action? Am I misreading it? Is this fake?