The US data analysis company Palantir has largely failed in its attempt to force a comprehensive counter-statement from the Swiss online magazine “Republik”.
Read more after the ad
In its ruling of June 4, 2026 (PDF), the Commercial Court of the Canton of Zurich rejected 22 of 23 counter statements requested, as the “Republic” announced on Saturday.
The background is two research studies that “Republik” published together with the WAV research collective in December 2025 (Part 1 and Part 2). The basis for the lawsuit were 59 requests under the Swiss Public Information Act. The contributions documented seven years of largely unsuccessful Palantir acquisition efforts with Swiss federal authorities as well as Zurich’s role as the group’s European hub.
A successful rebuttal
Palantir was only successful with a factual claim about the “Foundry” software. The “Republic” had written that Foundry was “originally developed for the USA, for ‘counter-insurgency’ in Afghanistan and Iraq.” The “Republic” had to respond to this passage with the following counter-statement within five working days:
The “Republic” has published the counter-statement, but emphasizes that the editorial team sticks to its representation.
(Image: Republic)
The court justified the admission by saying that it was a concrete statement of fact that could be proven – in contrast to the other 22 passages in question. The “Republic” has already compared the text with the note “The editorial team sticks to its presentation”.
Value judgments instead of facts
Read more after the ad
According to the ruling, the Swiss right of reply only covers verifiable factual statements, but not value judgments or conclusions. Palantir repeatedly failed to achieve this distinction. The court viewed the terms “surveillance technology”, “surveillance tool” and “lethal weapon of war” as permissible conclusions from the undisputed functions of the software. When calling it a “deadly weapon of war,” it referred to original quotes from Palantir CEO Alex Karp submitted by The Republic, according to which Palantir exists “to disrupt and, if necessary, frighten and occasionally kill enemies.”
The pointed language of the research also stood up to scrutiny. The court classified phrases such as “large sales campaign”, “persistent” and “flashed” as subjective assessments that are based on undisputed facts – namely that there has been no collaboration between Palantir and Swiss federal authorities in seven years. The court also accepted the summary of an internal army report that recommended “avoiding solutions from Palantir”: It was clear from the article that it was about a general review, not a specific offer.
A second hurdle was the immediate personal impact. Regarding the description of the US immigration agency Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) as an organization that “hunts for migrants,” the court stated: Even if this formulation is evaluatively pointed, it is directed against ICE as a state agency, not directly against Palantir.
Growing political pressure
The filing of the lawsuit in February had already brought additional attention to the original reporting. The ruling comes at a time of increasing political pressure on Palantir. In the UK, London Mayor Sadiq Khan halted a £50 million Metropolitan Police contract with Palantir in May. At the same time, criticism of the deployment in the NHS, where civil rights organizations such as Medact and Amnesty International are calling for the contract to be terminated, is growing.
In Germany, the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution has chosen the French Palantir alternative ChapsVision, and Digital Minister Karsten Wildberger (CDU) wants to specifically reduce the dependence on US providers such as Microsoft and Palantir. In Lower Saxony, the SPD and the Greens continue to reject the use of the software, and an exit is also being discussed in Baden-Württemberg.
At the same time, the company is increasingly positioning itself as a political actor with a 22-theses manifesto that calls for, among other things, AI weapons, conscription and closer integration of Silicon Valley and the state apparatus.
The judgment of June 4th is not yet final: Palantir can lodge a complaint with the Swiss Federal Court within 30 days. An answer to the inquiry from heise online as to whether Palantir will make use of this option is still pending.
Read also
(v.a.z.a.)
