Palou tells High Court McLaren dangled F1 seat as $20.7m case turns on who promised what
Alex Palou says Formula 1 was the only reason he ever engaged with McLaren. McLaren says he was never promised it. That gap — and a $20.7 million bill — is what London’s High Court is now being asked to close.
Testifying this week, the reigning IndyCar champion described being “upset, worried and angry” when he learned McLaren had signed Oscar Piastri in 2022, a seat he believed might become his. Palou’s argument is straightforward: he signed with McLaren’s IndyCar arm in 2022 because he was told F1 would follow. McLaren’s rebuttal is just as blunt: there was interest and some optionality, not a guarantee.
The legal roots go back to the summer of 2022. Palou signed with McLaren Racing, only for Chip Ganassi Racing to exercise its option to keep him for 2023. That dispute was settled, but it meant Palou reneged on his McLaren deal. McLaren is now seeking damages it says flowed from that reversal: a renegotiated sponsor deal, missed commercial opportunities, and costs it claims it incurred reshuffling drivers.
On the stand, McLaren Racing CEO Zak Brown said he “never strung along Alex,” insisting he didn’t tell Palou he’d be under consideration for a 2023 F1 race seat. Brown described it as “optionality” — contingency plans where Palou could serve as a reserve if a race driver was sidelined (Plan B), or be considered if rookie Piastri didn’t perform (Plan C).
Palou paints a different picture. He told the court his management had made clear to Brown at the end of 2021 that “the only attraction was to go to F1,” calling it “the biggest single-seater series in the world.” He says that after Piastri’s now-infamous September 2022 post confirming he’d signed with McLaren and not Alpine, he asked Monaco Increase Management to push Brown for clarity. According to Palou, Brown responded that the team “needed someone who would be quick in 2023,” but reassured that it wouldn’t interfere with Palou’s F1 chances — an assurance McLaren denies.
Palou also recounted a dinner near McLaren’s Woking base in October 2022, claiming Brown told him hiring Piastri was the call of then-team boss Andreas Seidl. Palou says Brown added that Piastri’s 2023 performance would be evaluated against Palou for 2024. “From that point on, I started to be more willing to stay with CGR,” Palou admitted. Brown disputes that F1 was ever promised at all.
The Spaniard said the uncertainty led him to speak with Helmut Marko in June 2023 about a potential AlphaTauri seat. He alleges Brown learned of those talks and contacted Marko directly, after which interest cooled. “I don’t know what happened in that conversation, but for sure it didn’t help,” Palou said. The court will have to decide what’s fact and what’s frustration; none of this has yet been corroborated.
McLaren’s financial claim is specific. It wants $7.2 million related to a renegotiation with sponsor NTT Data, which it says was tied in part to hiring a driver of Palou’s calibre; $6.8 million in lost sponsorship elsewhere; $1.3 million that covers promoting Pato O’Ward into F1-adjacent duties and other driver costs; and the return of a $400,000 signing bonus. There’s also the harder-to-quantify reputational hit. In his own words, Brown said Palou’s decision to walk away “rolled a grenade into the room,” forcing the team to rotate drivers and fight fires when it should have been chasing performance and partners.
Strip away the legalese and it’s the sport’s oldest tension: ambition vs. assurance. Palou saw a pathway to F1 and, he argues, was told it was there. McLaren saw a top-tier IndyCar talent willing to be part of its ladder — with the F1 door cracked open, not flung wide. Timing made it messier. Piastri did sign and, crucially, stayed. As of 2025, he and Lando Norris remain McLaren’s Formula 1 pairing, which makes any notion of a Palou switch back then feel even more hypothetical now.
None of that changes the damages claim. Courts don’t rule on what might have been; they rule on what was written, what was said, and what it cost. McLaren will say it lost money and leverage when Palou changed course. Palou will say he changed course because the key promise — a real shot at F1 — evaporated.
Palou faces cross-examination on Friday, 10 October, before Justice Simon Picken. A verdict isn’t expected until November, but the outlines are set: did McLaren overplay the F1 carrot, or did Palou overread the subtext? Either way, a case born in the gray areas of driver-market courtship is about to get a black-and-white answer.
