Sadiq Khan’s policing office alleges that the Metropolitan Police structured its procurement process to secure Palantir as the supplier, while the American technology company challenges the mayor’s decision in court.
LONDON — A legal battle over a proposed £50 million technology contract has escalated after the office of London mayor Sadiq Khan accused the Metropolitan Police of designing its procurement process to ensure that the American data company Palantir received the deal.
The allegations were made in court documents filed by the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime, known as Mopac, as it defends Khan’s decision to prevent Scotland Yard from signing the contract. The dispute has exposed a deep division between City Hall and Britain’s largest police force over public procurement, operational efficiency and the growing use of artificial intelligence in policing.
The proposed agreement concerned a Unified Operational Analytics system intended to automate parts of criminal-intelligence analysis and help investigators process large quantities of evidence and police data. It was valued at £25.3 million for 2026–27, with a possible one-year extension worth a further £24.8 million.
Mopac blocked the contract in May after concluding that the procurement process contained “clear and serious” breaches of the rules and had failed adequately to demonstrate value for money. Contracts above £500,000 require approval from the mayor’s policing office.
In its legal defence, Mopac alleges that the Met intended “at each stage” to award the contract to Palantir and designed the process accordingly. Joseph Barrett KC, representing the mayor’s office, said the force had not conducted an adequate competitive exercise or sufficient testing of the wider market.
The filing also claims that the Met’s commercial director confirmed in April that he had been instructed to ensure Palantir received the contract and that the subsequent award procedure was developed to produce that result. Mopac further alleges that the mayor’s office was repeatedly given inaccurate, inconsistent or misleading information by the police. These remain allegations submitted as part of an active legal case and have not yet been tested at trial.
Palantir has rejected the basis on which the agreement was blocked and is suing Mopac. The company argues that the decision was influenced by political concerns about its perceived values and ethics rather than legitimate procurement considerations.
Its lawyer, Lord David Pannick KC, has accused the mayor’s office of failing to disclose the complete reasons for its intervention. Palantir argues that the decision was irrational, disproportionate and based on irrelevant considerations. The company has also maintained that its technology could help the Met investigate crime more efficiently and make better use of limited resources.
Mopac denies that opposition to Palantir’s corporate values was the determining factor. Its legal submission states that the contract was rejected because the process was unlawful and that withholding approval was the only decision the office could realistically and lawfully make.
The case follows months of public disagreement between Khan and Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley. Rowley has warned that losing access to the proposed technology would prevent planned efficiency improvements and could require the withdrawal of as many as 700 officers from frontline responsibilities.
The Met has argued that modern analytical software is essential as the force attempts to maintain services while operating under financial pressure. It says automated systems could reduce administrative work, accelerate investigations and allow officers to spend more time on operational duties.
Palantir has previously worked with the Met on a smaller project that combined existing records to help identify officers accused of misconduct or considered at risk of presenting professional or welfare concerns. A temporary extension has since allowed related work to continue while the force prepares a competitive procurement process, although Palantir is not guaranteed the replacement contract.
The controversy also reflects wider unease surrounding Palantir’s expanding role in British public services. The company provides sophisticated data-analysis platforms to government, defence and health organisations, but its contracts have faced scrutiny because of its work with military and immigration authorities and the political positions associated with senior figures at the company.
The High Court dispute will now determine whether Khan’s office acted lawfully when it withheld approval and whether the procurement process gave Palantir an improper advantage. A full trial is expected in January.
Beyond the immediate fate of the contract, the case raises a broader question for public authorities: how governments can introduce powerful artificial-intelligence systems quickly without weakening competitive safeguards, transparency or public accountability.
