Sorry I should be clearer.
Nulls interpretation is that the initial tweet was a claim by Epik that Law enforcement required Epik to put a clientHold on the domain.
My interpretation is that the initial tweet was a poorly worded claim by Epik that they did not sieze the domain because they were required to help switch the domain by "U.S authorities".
While inaccurate to my knowledge, the latter interpretation is not defamatory. The Epik X account's sarcastic shitposting has made their position even less clear.
The problem is that this is an official account that represents Epik.com (Epik, LLC) as a company and not just some shitposting account with 2 followers.
It is reasonable to expect that information regarding an action taken against a customer to come from this account to at least be accurate. Even if they're just shitposting, they made libelous claims about something that doesn't exist on this site and the account still represents the company.
They should have perhaps gotten their story correct and consulted with their legal department before blabbing off about any situation regarding a customer or actions towards a customer.
I'm not a lawyer, but yeah.