Data analytics giant Palantir is suing a Swiss magazine for reporting that the Swiss government didn't want to work with them. The twist? The reporting appears to be completely accurate. This is what a SLAPP suit looks like in the tech industry.

Here's what happened. Republik, a Swiss investigative outlet, published articles detailing Palantir's seven-year effort to sell software to Swiss federal agencies. The reporters filed 59 freedom of information requests and documented that Swiss authorities rejected Palantir at least nine times.

The reason? Data sovereignty concerns. The Swiss Armed Forces concluded that using Palantir's software posed unacceptable risks because "sensitive data could be accessed by the US government and intelligence services." Given that Palantir is a US company with deep ties to American intelligence agencies, this isn't paranoia - it's a legitimate national security concern.

So what's Palantir suing for? Not defamation. They're not claiming the articles are false. Instead, they're invoking Switzerland's "right of reply" statute, arguing the magazine didn't give them sufficient opportunity to respond. They want courts to force Republik to publish lengthy counter-statements.

Republik's managing director says Palantir's proposed statements "did not fairly address or rebut the reporting," and the magazine stands by its document-based journalism. In other words, Palantir wants the publication to print their PR spin, and when the magazine declined, they sued.

This is classic SLAPP - Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation. Use expensive litigation to punish journalism you don't like, even if you can't prove it's false. The goal isn't to win in court. It's to make reporting on you so costly and time-consuming that smaller outlets think twice.

The irony is extraordinary. Palantir sells surveillance technology to governments around the world. Their entire business model is built on collecting and analyzing data about people who often have no idea they're being monitored. But when a magazine publishes accurate reporting about their business practices, suddenly they're victims who need the courts to protect them.

This matters beyond one lawsuit. Press freedom depends on the ability to report accurate information without fear of being buried in legal costs. Switzerland has strong press protections, but even there, a well-funded company can weaponize the legal system to punish coverage they don't like.

I've covered tech companies for years, both as a founder and a journalist. Most respond to critical coverage by trying to convince reporters they're wrong, or by making their case to the public. The ones who go straight to litigation? That usually means they know the reporting is solid and they're trying to suppress it anyway.

Palantir has every right to dispute inaccurate reporting. But when your complaint is that accurate journalism made you look bad, the problem isn't the journalism. It's what the journalism revealed.

The technology is impressive. The question is whether companies selling surveillance tools should be able to suppress accurate reporting about their own activities.