Palantir just sued Republik, a small Swiss magazine, for publishing investigative journalism based on 59 freedom of information requests. The reporting documented what the Swiss government already concluded: Palantir’s software posed unacceptable risks to data sovereignty, and Swiss agencies rejected the company at least nine times.
Palantir does not disagree with the reporting. They’re invoking a Swiss “right of reply” statute to force Palantir’s propaganda. A law designed to correct factual errors is being weaponized to compel a publication to run corporate marketing fluff.
This is classic Palantir information warfare, to cheat when they can’t win.
Truth Inversion Tactics
In 2016, Palantir knew their product wouldn’t be selected on its merits so they sued the U.S. Army in the Court of Federal Claims to force adoption. The company cynically invoked the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 — a law requiring agencies to consider buying products before building one. The Army at this point had spent over $3 billion developing DCGS-A, its intelligence analysis platform. Palantir argued the Army could not shut them out.
The court said the Army violated procurement law by building, which made little sense. The practical outcome was a total inversion of the law’s intent. The Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act exists to prevent vendor lock-in and promote interoperability. Palantir used it to promote vendor lock-in and prevent interoperability.
Yeah, it’s as stupid as it sounds.
Gotham is one of the most proprietary, dependency-creating platforms in the defense sector. It was designed so that once your data, workflows, and analyst training live inside Palantir’s ecosystem, they don’t leave.
Just think of how bad the American Justice system has to be for a judge to rule that the way to prevent lock-in is to privatize lock-in.
The Swiss military identified this exact problem in the internal report that Republik published. Using Palantir’s software would increase unsafe dependence on a provider with Nazi origins, risk data leaving the country, and leave unclear who has access to data shared with the company. It’s a genuinely awful product. Which is why Palantir has fired up their legal team again.
We see the same structural logic today as before: invoke a law designed to protect a value, to instead destroy that value.
| Element | U.S. Army (2016) | Swiss Republik (2025) |
|---|---|---|
| Law invoked | Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act | Swiss right-of-reply statute |
| Stated purpose of law | Prevent vendor lock-in; require open competition | Correct factual errors in reporting |
| Palantir’s claim | Army illegally excluded commercial alternatives | Magazine denied adequate right to respond |
| What Palantir actually sought | Forced adoption of its proprietary platform | Forced publication of its corporate messaging |
| Was the underlying claim factually contested? | No — Palantir didn’t dispute DCGS-A existed; argued process was illegal | No — Palantir doesn’t claim the reporting is false |
| Actual outcome vs. law’s intent | Anti-lock-in law produced lock-in | Error-correction law used to suppress accurate reporting |
| Target | Army procurement bureaucracy that couldn’t match Boies Schiller litigation | Small independent magazine that can’t match Palantir’s legal budget |
| Amplification strategy | Rep. Duncan Hunter ran Congressional interference; casualty stories filed in court | Streisand Effect now international via FT, European Federation of Journalists, UK Parliament |
Propaganda Abuses a Grain of Truth
The inversion depends on the original principle being sound. Nobody argues against competition in procurement. Nobody argues against balance in press coverage. Palantir takes the principle and inverts it, a modern day “Arbeit Macht Frei”. Work is good, keeps you healthy, so here’s a work camp that murders you.
In the Army case, Palantir built its litigation around “curated” field testimony about the 82nd Airborne’s IED casualties, commanders allegedly requesting Palantir and being denied, DCGS-A systems “collecting dust.” This was advocacy, the opposite of evidence, amplified by a congressman dramatically shouting at Gen. Odierno in hearings. The Army’s own test evaluation reports were accused of being doctored to turn the accusation itself into the story, regardless of whether any evaluation supported it. Hitler notably made trials against him into a victimization complaint, inverting perception of his aggression into a campaign to enable it.
The court didn’t actually rule the Army failed to consider a useful product. It ruled the Army didn’t follow a procedure exactly. That narrow procedural victory became a crack that Palantir smashed open, grabbing an $800 million contract that forced permanent platform dependency.
In Switzerland, Palantir doesn’t need the platform that it claims to need. They published a blog post. They have access to every major media outlet and social platform on earth. The whole right-of-reply lawsuit is a bald-faced lie. They are forcing a small magazine to host Palantir’s lies under the threat of legal attack. The European Federation of Journalists called it what it is: a SLAPP suit.
Asymmetric Abuse
The Army’s procurement office was no match for Palantir’s heavily funded litigation team at Boies Schiller. Republik certainly can’t match the legal budget.
The inversion strategy requires the target to lack the resources to expose in court that the law is being used against its own purpose.
Capitulate to American billionaires or be sued into default is the choice Palantir’s aggressive legal strategy creates.
A company that brags about optimizing kill chains and whose CEO talks about scaring and occasionally killing enemies can’t handle a Swiss statistical office ignoring its emails, or a small magazine publishing government documents.
The pattern recognition software apparently has no shame, doesn’t flag self-inflicted reputational damage.
A Zurich court rules in March. Let’s see if they make the U.S. Army error. Whatever the outcome, the method is clearly documented. Palantir cheats by inversion: take a law built to protect openness, competition, or accountability, and use it to destroy exactly those things.
