In a high-stakes legal battle unfolding in the Royal Courts of Justice in London, McLaren boss Zak Brown has flatly denied allegations that he misled IndyCar champion Álex Palou with false promises of a Formula 1 career.
The case, in which McLaren is seeking damages of around $20 million, centers on claims by Palou’s legal team that he was enticed to join McLaren’s IndyCar programme under the belief that a future F1 seat would materialise — a promise he says was never delivered.
During cross-examination on Tuesday, Palou’s counsel Nick De Marco KC accused Brown of “stringing Mr Palou along” and making “false promises of F1 glory” before abandoning him once Oscar Piastri’s F1 drive was confirmed. “All that time you have been stringing Mr Palou along,” De Marco said. Brown responded sharply and repeatedly, insisting he had never guaranteed an F1 seat, and that Palou had always understood the fluid nature of opportunities. “I never strung along Alex,” Brown said in court. “I never told him he would be under consideration for 2023 … there was some optionality to join F1.”
McLaren’s claim is built on a contract that Palou signed in late 2022 to move into McLaren’s IndyCar operation beginning in 2023, but later rescinded the deal and chose to stay with Chip Ganassi Racing. McLaren says that Palou’s decision caused substantial reputational, commercial and operational damage, particularly in relation to sponsorship agreements that had hinged on his involvement with the team.
The company contends it lost millions in potential revenue, had to renegotiate sponsor deals and find replacement drivers at short notice.
In his testimony, Brown defended the handling of the Palou deal and insisted that he had been careful not to mislead. He said that Palou was regarded as “Plan B” for a possible F1 slot that would open only if a main driver underperformed, and that a further fallback, “Plan C,” would potentially see Palou replace Piastri in 2024 if necessary.
Brown cited precedents in the sport, naming Oliver Bearman and Nyck de Vries as drivers who had secured F1 seats after serving as stand-ins or reserve drivers.
Throughout the day, the proceedings became increasingly tense, with repeated clashes over document interpretations, deleted WhatsApp messages, and private communications. De Marco grilled Brown over the use of disappearing message features on WhatsApp.
Brown defended himself, saying the deletion was inadvertent or automatic in some cases, and maintained that McLaren had preserved all relevant documents. “I was compliant in preserving documents associated with this case,” Brown declared.
At one point, the lawyer escalated tensions by accusing Brown of speaking in “absolute rubbish, made up on the spot,” to which Brown retorted sharply: “I think you are talking rubbish.” The debate also touched on internal financial emails involving McLaren’s finance director Andy Greenfield. Brown contested De Marco’s characterization of those communications and quipped during the exchange: “His knowledge of IndyCar, I would say, is equivalent to yours.”
Palou’s legal team argues that McLaren’s damages claims are wildly inflated, and that Brown’s conduct amounted to baiting the driver with illusions of top-flight advancement. In opening statements, De Marco asserted McLaren’s pivot to Piastri “cynically” left Palou sidelined and disillusioned. “He did so in his typical style of negotiating, playing drivers and teams against each other,” the lawyer told the court. “It became apparent that Mr Palou had made a mistake … he felt he had been deceived by Zak Brown leading him on to believe he would be promoted to F1 when that was likely never Zak Brown’s intention.”
McLaren, for its part, contends that Palou admitted breaching the contract by choosing Chip Ganassi Racing, and that the trial’s purpose is to quantify the compensation owed.
The company’s legal team has stressed that Palou’s side must prove that losses claimed — particularly those relating to sponsor adjustments, driver salary differentials, and commercial revenue — were genuine, causal, and proportionate.
Brown, who had cut short McLaren’s celebratory gathering following the team’s constructors’ championship win in Singapore to travel to London for testimony, repeatedly defended his integrity under pressure. He denied being evasive or dishonest and insisted that his conduct over three decades in motorsport confirmed his credibility. “I wish you would test my integrity,” he said at one point during the exchanges.