Palantir settles its £50m Met contract suit after Mopac disclaims any values test

No court has tested how far a buyer's ethics objections can reach in public procurement. The one document both sides signed says ethics were not the basis for the block: Mopac's May 2026 decision "was not based on Palantir's values or ethics or any wider reporting about the company" ^[3]. Mopac's stated grounds were its statutory role of examining spend proposals against legal tests and guidance on procurement, governance, affordability and value for money ^[5]. Palantir had argued that political considerations influenced the decision, while Mopac maintained that the Met had failed to follow proper procurement procedures, City AM reported ^[19]. Neither account reached a judge, because the hearing due in January 2027 will not take place ^[9].

The case still gave Palantir something. City AM understands the company sued to challenge the decision, to avoid discrimination in future contracts and to repair reputational damage ^[13]. The Guardian reported that Palantir feared that if public authorities could block it over objections to its senior leadership's values, its ability to operate in the UK would suffer ^[10]. A written statement that values were not a factor speaks directly to the reputational aim. Whether it protects Palantir in later contracts depends on how the re-run goes.

Tom Watson, the former Labour deputy leader whom the Guardian says Palantir hired as a full-time lobbyist a month before the settlement, put the company's reading on record ^[11]. He said: "The mayor and his team have recognised their actions could have created the impression that the decision to block the UOA contract was based on Palantir's values." ^[14]

A skeptic has material to work with. City AM headlined the outcome a "Khan climbdown" ^[20]. Palantir's UK head, Louis Mosley, had accused Khan of politicising procurement and of "putting politics above public safety" ^[18]. Read that way, a joint statement disclaiming values looks like a retreat.

The concession is narrower than that. Mopac accepted only that a spokesperson's statement before the decision "could have incorrectly created the impression" that values were a factor ^[4]. It admitted no liability and paid no damages ^[7]. The mayor's office also said it had never operated a policy against contracting with Palantir ^[12].

Litigation was a large bet against the prize. Earlier court budgets put the two sides' combined potential costs at more than £8m ^[8], which is at least 16% of the £50m contract value ^[16]. Palantir separately faces a campaign to have its £330m NHS medical data contract axed and replaced ^[15]. That contract sits with a different buyer, and the agreement the Guardian describes is between Palantir and Mopac ^[1].