Background of the Investigation
On an autumn evening in Zurich in 2024, a group of journalists from an independent Swiss research collective began discussing an investigation into Palantir, one of the world’s largest technology companies.
Three years prior, Palantir had announced the establishment of a “European hub” in Altendorf, a small Swiss municipality with a population of about 7,000 located on the shores of Lake Zurich.
Initial press coverage was positive; a Swiss national newspaper praised the canton of Schwyz for successfully attracting a US tech company. However, the journalists from the collective WAV were skeptical and questioned the nature of Palantir’s relationship with Swiss authorities.
WAV reached out to Republik, a small Swiss reader-funded magazine, to collaborate on the investigation. After one year and 59 freedom of information requests, their joint report alleged that Palantir had persistently sought to establish itself in Switzerland but had been rejected. The investigation attracted significant attention across Europe, sparking debate in Germany and Switzerland.
Palantir’s Legal Response
Palantir was displeased with the report. The journalists stated they had interviewed company executives and provided Palantir with a comprehensive list of questions prior to publication. However, Palantir demanded the publication of a detailed rebuttal containing numerous points that the journalists considered beyond the scope of their investigation. When Republik declined to publish the rebuttal, Palantir initiated a lawsuit in a Swiss commercial court seeking to compel the magazine to do so.
In a statement to , Palantir asserted that Swiss law recognizes the right of reply to ensure the public receives balanced information. The company maintained that the rebuttal addressed material inaccuracies about Palantir’s business, technology, and operations, and that their request was for a concise and proportionate right of reply.
Palantir’s blogpost accused Republik of promoting a “false and misleading narrative” about the company that undermines important discussions on European software modernization. The company disputed several aspects of Republik’s article, including implications that Palantir’s technology is costly and the inclusion of a confidential Swiss army report that the army had not shared with Palantir.
“Palantir has the right to sue for a right of reply, if they wish to do so,” said Marguerite Meyer, a journalist working with WAV. “However, we adhered to all journalistic standards, and had a thorough factcheck done. They are suing for an absurd list of changes. It does feel like an intimidation campaign.”
Palantir’s Presence and Activities in Switzerland
By the time the journalists began their investigation, Palantir had reportedly been based in Switzerland for nearly four years, though no government contracts had been publicly reported during that period.
The journalists sought to understand why this was the case. They aimed to explore the “invisible sphere of exchange and negotiation, meetings, government and companies,” according to Lorenz Naegeli of WAV.
“We tried to find out, is there any kind of government agency that uses this software? I mean, they are in Switzerland, eventually some government official maybe thought they could use this Palantir,” said Balz Oertli, also with WAV.
The investigation, published in December, detailed Palantir’s prolonged efforts to sell its services to the Swiss government. It revealed that the company had pitched its technology to Switzerland’s chancellor during the Covid-19 pandemic to assist with data tracking, approached the Swiss army, and met with then finance minister Ueli Maurer.
“Palantir repeatedly contacted different government agencies through different means … and tried to repeatedly get a foot into the door,” said Naegeli.
While many journalists have reported on Palantir’s contracts with the US federal government and agencies such as Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the Republik and WAV investigation may have struck a particularly sensitive chord.
“It’s the first time [anyone] has published a story about Palantir that has a failure narrative,” said Adrienne Fichter, a tech journalist with Republik. “They didn’t get through and they were not good enough for Switzerland … That’s why they’re going for us, that’s why they’re suing us, they want to fight this narrative.”
“I think Palantir doesn’t really mind moral criticism. That has been done heaps. But what our reporting shows is a bit of a failure to sell their products – I believe they really don’t like that,” added Meyer.
Palantir’s Perspective on the Investigation
In its blogpost, Palantir stated that the article portrayed routine market exploration—approximately nine meetings over seven years—as an “aggressive” and inherently nefarious sales campaign. The company emphasized that the Swiss government was not a significant focus of its regional business growth.
Reactions from Journalists and Media Experts
The European Federation of Journalists condemned the legal action as “an attempt at intimidation aimed at discouraging any critical analysis of Palantir’s activities.”
“It seems like they expected a less critical approach,” said Naegeli.
“I think they thought, ‘Oh, this is a small publication, we can go after them.’ And also, to me, this is my purely subjective impression, but they want to make us too tired and scared to, you know, have time to do other reporting,” said Fichter.
Palantir has stated that Republik has repeatedly misrepresented the nature of the legal proceedings.
In a written response to , Palantir asserted that the journalists had presented “a handful of informal conversations with government representatives over a seven-year span as a conclusive portrayal that Palantir repeatedly and formally bid on government contracts and was rebuffed over technological shortcomings and ethical concerns. This is false.”
Legal Context of the Right of Reply in Switzerland
Dominique Strebel, an expert in media law and editor-in-chief of the Swiss magazine Beobachter, explained that Swiss law permits subjects of a story to request a right of reply. However, this right must be concise and limited to factual matters related to the story.
“This lawsuit for a right of reply is not about whether Republik was technically inaccurate or not. It is only about whether Palantir is allowed to place its view of the facts alongside that of Republik and whether Republik must publish it.”
