Palantir Technologies, the US provider of analytics software, finds itself directly affected by two reports from the Swiss online magazine "Republik". After the company unsuccessfully demanded a counterstatement from the magazine, it now wants to enforce one through legal action. It's about a factual comparison, says the software provider. The "Republik" creators appear surprised.
Streisand Effect
With the step to court, Palantir has generated more attention for the "Republik" reporting than the objected articles themselves could have caused – 23 years after Barbra Streisand triggered the effect named after her. And yet, there are reasons why Palantir is acting this way.
While in Germany the provider of data linking and data analysis software for authorities with surveillance powers is successful with at least some state customers. The company has so far had – as far as is known – little state clientele in Switzerland.
In December, "Republik" extensively quoted from Swiss administration files. According to this, Palantir repeatedly sought contact with Swiss authorities – and found it. In some cases, it originated from Palantir, in others, likely from public bodies. The matters concerned the military, police, and health authorities. However, no business deal was apparently concluded.
Palantir feels unfairly treated by the reporting on this. "We can confirm that an application for a counterstatement has been filed with the Commercial Court in this matter," the communications officer of the Cantonal High Court told heise online on Friday upon request.
Swiss Counterstatements
Swiss law provides for counterstatements, meaning that as soon as a request for a counterstatement has been rejected by a medium, a civil court can examine the matter and hear both sides. The Commercial Court of Zurich is responsible here. The Commercial Court of Zurich is responsible here.
Palantir says it had to sue to uphold its legal claim. "Palantir fully respects press freedom and the essential role of independent media in public debate," said a company spokeswoman. The right to a counterstatement is a "correction instrument intended to provide the public with balanced information."
For Palantir, the "Republik" reporting came at an inopportune time. This is because important procurement decisions are currently being made in several business areas in many European countries: the modernization and expansion of military, intelligence, and secret services, as well as police authorities, would be a promising business for Palantir and its software, which is also helpful for official surveillance.
In its home market, the USA, the company does business with US federal authorities for about a quarter of a billion US dollars, according to transparency data approximately a quarter of a billion US dollars. Customers include the US Department of Defense, the Army, and the FBI. The company reports nearly 4.5 billion US dollars in revenue for 2025, about a tenth of SAP's annual revenue. And yet, Palantir is valued on the stock market at around 300 billion euros, while SAP comes in at around 200 billion.
Difficult Terrain Europe
The European market remains difficult terrain for Palantir. The connection to the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE), which is supposed to track down illegal migrants with brutal methods and a lot of high-tech, causes consternation in Europe. As a US company, Palantir is subject to US law, which increasingly questions international cooperation in security matters – this is unlikely to be conducive to sales for Palantir.
Meanwhile, the uproar had just subsided elsewhere: Palantir was criticized for its involvement in Israel. Founders Peter Thiel and Alex Karp had agreed to a strategic partnership with the Israeli Ministry of Defense in January 2024, Bloomberg reported at the time. The report on this is publicly available on the Palantir website.
The small medium from Switzerland is hardly comparable to industry giants like Bloomberg. It has been published ad-free and exclusively online since 2018. It is primarily supported by a good 30,000 subscribers, a majority of whom are also cooperative members with voting rights. Not a media behemoth with a large publisher behind it.
"Borderline Conspiracy Theories"
Shortly after the publication of the two articles now being heard in court, Courtney Bowman, head of Palantir's "Privacy and Civil Liberties" department, had already set the course on LinkedIn: The reports from "Republik" were "full of distortions, insinuations, and borderline conspiracy theories."
Bowman accuses the authors of having reproduced a report from the Swiss Army Staff too uncritically – whose authors, unfortunately, had "relied on a limited set of search engine hit sources." The Palantir representative, in turn, provided no evidence for his claims.
"I believe we have done excellent research and documented it very comprehensively," says Daniel Binswanger, co-editor-in-chief of "Republik," in an interview with heise online. Research based on Swiss government documents is one of the "best foundations for reporting." He is very confident about the outcome of the proceedings.
Palantir Rejects Accusation of Intimidation
Palantir strongly rejects the impression that a multi-billion dollar company is flexing its muscles against a small magazine: Any accusation that this is a strategic attempt to intimidate unfavorable reporting through legal action is unfounded, the company spokeswoman emphasizes: "Palantir merely seeks the publication of a concise and appropriate counterstatement to correct significant inaccuracies."
However, the company does not disclose what specific "significant inaccuracies" Palantir wants to see corrected. Palantir did not respond to a request to send the "corrections" specifically demanded by "Republik" by Friday afternoon.
Whether the company will achieve at least partial success with its approach in court is hardly predictable. The Swiss right to a counterstatement involves no examination by the court whether a statement was actually correct. This is why it is a frequently used form in the Swiss media world when companies feel they have been misrepresented.
"The right to a counterstatement is not about whether something is true or false," explains "Republik" co-editor-in-chief Daniel Binswanger. "It's about whether another version of the facts could also be possible." However, this only concerns factual representation. Opinions, on the other hand, are not challengeable in Switzerland either.
For the Swiss online magazine, however, the effect is noticeable and measurable. "We are overwhelmed," says Daniel Binswanger in an interview with heise online. "The offers of donations, expressions of solidarity – it's gigantic," he says. "We've never experienced a story triggering this." Ms. Streisand sends her regards.
(vbr)