Evidence is a massive problem here. As well as the extremely high threshold for US defamation; political candidates routinely tell the most absurd lies about each other.

The high threshold is only for public figures, which must show actual malice. For everyone else (e.g. your typical student falsely accused of plagiarism), they only need to show the statement was false, published, targeted the plaintiff, and caused damage - it's still defamation even if they were simply negligent in checking the facts. The company might be able to cover themselves if they are very clear they are just giving a statistical probability and not saying their model was definitely used, but if they imply they have hidden information that points to their conclusion (which is kind of the whole point of their algorithm) then that's not a valid defense. I can't say they would lose in practice, but in theory they ought to lose.

In places like Germany it's a crime to say something that makes a politician look bad, even if it's true.

That is simply incorrect. In Germany, truth is a complete defense as far as libel and defamation cases are concerned.

But not insult, and even for defamation, you will be prosecuted and have to prove the statement is true, even if the politician and everyone else knows it's true.