I think there may be a bit less to that one than meets the eye. In Swiss law there's some kind of right-of-reply thing where if someone puts something about you in print and you think it's wrong you may be entitled to have some sort of response printed. And AIUI the way this works is that you go before a court and say "we want our response printed, please", and that's what Palantir's done in this case.
(Note 1: For all I know it may well be true that the reporting is 100% accurate and Palantir's claim to deserve a reply is 100% bullshit. I'm not saying they're in the right here! But I think the actual story is a bit less horrible than "Palantir is taking these guys to court because they didn't like their reporting" sounds without the relevant context. They're not, e.g., trying to get damages from the newspaper, or trying to get what they wrote retracted, or anything like that.)
(Note 2: I am not an expert on Swiss law or on this case, and I am accordingly not 100% confident of any of the above. In the unlikely event that whether I'm right about this matters to anyone reading, they should check it for themselves :-).)
(Note 1: For all I know it may well be true that the reporting is 100% accurate and Palantir's claim to deserve a reply is 100% bullshit. I'm not saying they're in the right here! But I think the actual story is a bit less horrible than "Palantir is taking these guys to court because they didn't like their reporting" sounds without the relevant context. They're not, e.g., trying to get damages from the newspaper, or trying to get what they wrote retracted, or anything like that.)
(Note 2: I am not an expert on Swiss law or on this case, and I am accordingly not 100% confident of any of the above. In the unlikely event that whether I'm right about this matters to anyone reading, they should check it for themselves :-).)