This paper examines the November 2022 incident in which a fake Twitter account impersonating pharmaceutical giant Eli Lilly & Co. announced that insulin would henceforth be provided free of charge. The case represents a critical example of how digital disinformation can influence financial markets, corporate reputation, and public policy discourse.
Pharmaceutical pricing in the United States has been the subject of intense debate for decades. Insulin, in particular, has become emblematic of what critics describe as excessive and exploitative costs within the healthcare system. Against this backdrop, the “Free Insulin” incident in November 2022 demonstrates how the intersection of social media policy changes, corporate reputation risk, and public dissatisfaction can converge in a moment of high-impact disinformation.
On November 10, 2022, a Twitter account labeled @EliLillyandCo—equipped with a purchased verification badge under the newly introduced Twitter Blue program—published a statement reading:
The post rapidly went viral. For several hours, many users assumed the announcement was legitimate, given the presence of the blue verification checkmark. Only later did Eli Lilly’s official account, @LillyPad, intervene to clarify that the tweet was fraudulent (FiercePharma, 2022).
Subsequent reporting revealed that the account was created by Sean Morrow, a staffer at the advocacy organization More Perfect Union (Perfect Union, 2022). His stated motivation was to satirize the high cost of insulin and to expose the vulnerabilities of Twitter’s new verification-for-subscription policy. Morrow’s intent was not primarily financial disruption but rather political and social critique.
In the immediate aftermath, Eli Lilly’s stock fell from approximately $368.72 to $352.30 per share, a decline that translated into billions of dollars in lost market capitalization (Newsweek, 2022). Although the company later recovered, the incident highlighted the sensitivity of financial markets to digital signals, even when those signals are demonstrably false
The tweet catalyzed renewed debate regarding drug affordability. Social media users, politicians, and advocacy groups used the moment to criticize the pharmaceutical industry more broadly. The incident aligned with existing campaigns for drug price reform, including efforts to cap insulin costs at $35 per month, a policy later adopted by Eli Lilly in 2023 (Wikipedia, 2023).
The episode revealed significant weaknesses in Twitter’s verification system. By lowering barriers to impersonation, the platform inadvertently created conditions favorable to disinformation. This case is now frequently cited as evidence of the risks associated with platform deregulation and reduced content moderation (Snopes, 2022).
Although Eli Lilly bore no responsibility for the disinformation, the company was forced to issue a public apology and engage in crisis communication. The reputational harm was compounded by the perception that the false announcement—“insulin is free”—was more desirable to the public than Eli Lilly’s real-world pricing strategy.
The incident exemplifies the information asymmetry described in financial communication theory: when false but plausible messages circulate, markets may react before corrective signals are disseminated.
The case demonstrates that corporations are vulnerable not only to cyberattacks but also to information attacks, where the weapon is not code but credibility.
From a governance perspective, the event illustrates how design choices in platform policy (such as pay-to-verify systems) can create systemic risk, affecting actors well beyond the platform itself.
The “Free Insulin” tweet incident should be understood as more than an internet prank. It was a convergence of three forces:
Public frustration over healthcare costs,
Platform vulnerabilities due to deregulated verification policies, and
Corporate exposure to reputational and financial shocks in the digital information environment.
The broader lesson is that corporations, regulators, and platforms must all recognize disinformation as a structural risk. Moreover, the public response illustrates how satire and falsehood can accelerate legitimate political discourse, forcing powerful institutions to engage with issues they might otherwise sideline.
FiercePharma (2022). Eli Lilly hit by fake Twitter account after “free insulin” tweet.
Newsweek (2022). Insulin ‘free’ impersonator behind Eli Lilly’s stock crash goes public.
Perfect Union (2022). Revealed: I’m the guy behind the viral “insulin is free” tweet.
Snopes (2022). Did Eli Lilly announce insulin is free?
Wikipedia (2023). Twitter Blue verification controversy.