Met-Palantir AI contract blocked by London policing office over procurement breach
Mopac vetoed the £50m deal after the Met failed to present a lawful procurement strategy, court documents reveal
Incident → evidence → outcomeThe Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime (Mopac) blocked a £50m contract between the Metropolitan Police and US technology firm Palantir in May 2026. The deal would have provided artificial intelligence tools for criminal investigations across London’s 32 boroughs and the City of London.
Mopac said the Met failed to present a lawful procurement strategy. In court documents filed on 12 September 2026, Joseph Barrett KC, representing Mopac, described the breach as 'clear and serious'. The office argued the decision was necessary to prevent an 'unacceptable risk of unlawfulness'.
Palantir’s legal challenge
Palantir is suing Mopac, alleging the veto was based on the company’s 'values and ethics' rather than procedural failures. Lord Pannick KC, representing Palantir, previously called the decision 'irrational, disproportionate, and based on irrelevant considerations'. The firm is seeking a court order to force Mopac to approve the contract.
Mopac’s defence rejects this claim. Barrett stated the Met had 'repeatedly' provided 'inaccurate, misleading and/or inconsistent information' about its procurement process. He added that the Met had not considered any other suppliers for the contract, which Mopac said was a further breach of procurement rules.
Impact on London policing
The AI tools at the centre of the dispute are already used by other UK police forces, as well as the NHS and the Ministry of Defence. The Met had planned to deploy the technology to analyse crime patterns, manage investigations, and allocate resources across London’s boroughs.
A Met Police spokesperson told the BBC the force is 'reviewing the implications' of Mopac’s decision. They declined to comment on whether alternative suppliers would be considered. It is unclear when the Met will restart the procurement process or if Palantir will remain the preferred bidder.
What happens next
A full High Court hearing is scheduled for January 2027. The court will decide whether Mopac’s veto was lawful and, if not, whether the contract should be awarded to Palantir. If the ruling favours Mopac, the Met will need to restart its procurement process, potentially delaying the rollout of AI tools for months or years.
Residents in Barnet and other London boroughs will not see immediate changes to policing as a result of the dispute. However, the outcome could shape how the Met adopts new technology in future, including tools for predictive policing, facial recognition, and data analysis.
Questions this report answers
01Why did Mopac block the Met’s £50m Palantir AI contract?
Mopac blocked the deal because the Met failed to present a lawful procurement strategy. The office argued the breach was 'clear and serious' and necessary to prevent an 'unacceptable risk of unlawfulness'.
02What is Palantir claiming in its legal challenge against Mopac?
Palantir claims Mopac’s veto was based on the company’s 'values and ethics' rather than legal grounds. The firm alleges the decision was 'irrational, disproportionate, and based on irrelevant considerations'.
03What does Mopac say about the Met’s procurement process?
Mopac states the Met 'repeatedly' provided 'inaccurate, misleading and/or inconsistent information' about its procurement process. The office also claims the Met did not consider other suppliers, breaching procurement rules.
04When will the High Court decide on the legality of Mopac’s veto?
A full High Court hearing is scheduled for January 2027 to determine whether Mopac’s veto was lawful. The ruling will decide if the contract should be awarded to Palantir or if the Met must restart procurement.
Support is available without a police report
Find London services, specialist support and the rights set out in the Victims’ Code. If someone is in immediate danger, call 999.
Find victim supportSend a correction or case update
If a hearing, charge or outcome has changed, send the court, case number and source document so we can update the record.
Contact the desk