Palantir settles its £50m Met contract suit after Mopac disclaims any values test
Palantir and London's policing office withdrew their legal claims, avoiding a January High Court trial over a blocked £50m Met AI contract. Their joint statement says values played no part in the May block, so no court has ruled on a buyer's ethics objections.
The Board Room · Leadership desk
Key figures: earlier court budgets put the two parties' combined potential legal costs at more than £8m, per City AM. The blocked deal for Scotland Yard to use AI was a two-year £50m deal.
| Figure | Value | Note | Claim |
|---|---|---|---|
| Combined potential legal costs, more than, per City AM | £8m | 16 | |
| Blocked AI deal value | £50m | 6 | |
| Blocked deal term | 2 years | 6 |
What happened
- Palantir sued Mopac in June after Khan stepped in to block a two-year deal for Scotland Yard to use its AI to process criminal intelligence in a system called UOA.
- Mopac also recognised that press reporting of a mayoral spokesperson's pre-decision statement could have incorrectly created the impression that the company's values had been a factor.
- A new procurement round is under way, and Mopac has agreed to treat Palantir fairly and equally if it bids, though it is not bound to appoint it.
Why it matters
- Who's exposed exposure Remarks made before a procurement decision can be read as its reason. Mopac conceded a spokesperson's statement could have created that impression, and the decision still drew a High Court claim.
- What it limits constraint Having said values were not the basis, Mopac can reject Palantir in the re-run only on the procurement, governance, affordability or value-for-money grounds it has already named.
- What doesn't add up contradiction Khan's earlier remark that public money should go to firms that share the city's values sits against a joint statement saying values played no part in this decision.
Next story · Build · yesterday
Anthropic and OpenAI fund separate firms to station engineers inside customersConfirmed2 publishers
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" [2]. 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 [4]. 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 [18]. Neither account reached a judge, because the hearing due in January 2027 will not take place [5].
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." [19]
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" [15]. 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 [3]. It admitted no liability and paid no damages [9]. The mayor's office also said it had never operated a policy against contracting with Palantir [7].
Litigation was a large bet against the prize. Earlier court budgets put the two sides' combined potential costs at more than £8m [16], which is at least 16% of the £50m contract value [17]. Palantir separately faces a campaign to have its £330m NHS medical data contract axed and replaced [12]. That contract sits with a different buyer, and the agreement the Guardian describes is between Palantir and Mopac [1].
What to watch
- Whether Palantir bids in the Mopac re-run, and what grounds Mopac gives if it declines to appoint the company.
- Whether the campaign to replace Palantir's £330m NHS medical data contract produces a decision, since that buyer is not a party to this settlement.
Clarity's read
What the record supports and how the coverage leans. The claims behind it follow.
Reality
- Evidence72
- Adoption
- Not scored
- Hype gap+20
- Incentives70
- Confidence75
Perspective Coverage
3 publishers- Builder
- Builder 4%
- Operator
- Operator 46%
- Investor
- Investor 50%
Claim ledger
Ranked by verification strength, evidence, and original report placement.
- [1]
Palantir and the mayor's office for policing and crime (Mopac) announced on Wednesday that they had withdrawn allegations against each other, heading off a High Court trial scheduled for January.
- [2]
In a joint statement, Palantir and Mopac said Mopac's May 2026 decision to block the contract 'was not based on Palantir's values or ethics or any wider reporting about the company'.
- [3]
The joint statement said Mopac recognises Palantir's concerns that media reporting of a statement from the mayor's spokesperson before the decision was taken 'could have incorrectly created the impression that an assessment of the company's values had been a factor in that decision'.
- [4]
According to the joint statement, Mopac's consideration was based on its statutory role of examining spend proposals, against the appropriate legal tests and relevant guidance on procurement, governance, affordability and ensuring value for money for Londoners.
- [5]
The settlement ends proceedings that had been due for a full High Court hearing in January 2027.
- [6]
Palantir sued Mopac in June after Sadiq Khan stepped in to block it from awarding Palantir a two-year £50m deal for Scotland Yard to use AI to process intelligence in criminal investigations in a system called unified operational analytics (UOA), citing a 'clear and serious breach' of procurement rules.
- [7]
The mayor's office confirmed it had never operated a policy against contracting with Palantir.
- [8]
A new procurement process for the £50m police tech deal is under way and Mopac has agreed to treat Palantir 'fairly and equally' if it bids, as expected; Mopac is not bound to agree to Palantir's appointment.
- [9]
Each side is covering its own legal costs, no admissions of liability are made and no damages have been paid.
- [10]
Palantir was concerned that if public authorities were able to block it from winning contracts due to objections to the values of its senior leadership, it would undermine its ability to operate in the UK.
- [11]
Tom Watson, the former deputy leader of the Labour party, was hired as a full-time lobbyist by Palantir a month before the agreement to drop the claims.
- [12]
Palantir faces a battle to retain its £330m NHS medical data contract amid a campaign from parts of the public and MPs for it to be axed and replaced by a less controversial company.
- [13]
City AM understands Palantir pursued legal action not only to challenge the decision but also to make sure it would not face discrimination in future contracts and to repair any reputational damage.
- [14]
Khan has previously said Londoners only wanted to see public money being paid to companies that 'share the values of our city'.
- [15]
Louis Mosley, who heads Palantir in the UK and Europe, accused Khan of politicising procurement and said he was 'putting politics above public safety'.
- [16]
Earlier court budgets had put the two parties' combined potential legal costs at more than £8m.
- [17]
The more than £8m combined potential legal costs equal at least 16% of the £50m contract value.
- [18]
Palantir argued the decision had been influenced by political considerations, while Mopac maintained that the Met had failed to follow proper procurement procedures.
- [19]
Tom Watson 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.'
- [20]
City AM headlined its report on the settlement 'Khan climbdown'.
Sources
3 independent publishers whose own reporting we read for this story.
- channelnewsasia.comPalantir and London mayor's office settle lawsuit over UK police contract
1 article · October 14, 2026
- cityam.comKhan climbdown: Palantir settles £50m Met row after fears of ‘unlawful’ bias
1 article · October 14, 2026
- theguardian.comPalantir and Sadiq Khan drop legal battle over Met contract
2 articles · October 14, 2026
Topics and entities
Topics
- UK policing technology
- Public Sector Procurement
- Government AI contracts
Entities
- Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime
- Palantir
- Sadiq Khan
- Metropolitan Police