LONDON — Prince Harry’s final lawsuit aimed at taming the British tabloids ended in defeat Tuesday as a judge said he failed to prove his privacy invasion assertions against the publisher of the Daily Mail.
Justice Matthew Nicklin rejected the broad inferences the Duke of Sussex relied on to try to show that Associated Newspapers Ltd. engaged in unlawful activities. The judge said there was a realistic possibility the news came from legitimate sources.
The ruling scuttles lawsuits filed by Harry and six others, including singer Elton John and actor-model Elizabeth Hurley, that sought substantial damages. The legal costs alone — which the claimants could end up having to pay — for years of preparation and an 11-week trial were estimated at about 40 million pounds ($53.5 million).
The publisher called it an “overwhelming victory” and a “magnificent vindication” of the Mail’s journalism.
The newspapers had denied the allegations as “preposterous,” insisting the roughly 50 articles at issue were based on lawful sources, including friends, royal aides and publicists who offered information to reporters.
The decision leaves a mixed legacy for Harry’s trio of lawsuits accusing tabloid publishers of using unlawful tactics, such as phone hacking, or hiring private detectives to dig up dirt to snoop on his life.
Harry won a judgment in 2023 that condemned the publishers of the Daily Mirror for “widespread and habitual” phone hacking. Last year, Rupert Murdoch’s flagship U.K. tabloid, The Sun, made an unprecedented apology for intruding on his life for years, and agreed to pay substantial damages to settle his privacy invasion lawsuit.
The verdict, released remotely with no court hearing, coincided with Harry’s visit home to the U.K., which has been dominated by headlines over his latest efforts to repair a rift with his father, King Charles III.
Harry has said his litigation — in which he broke with royal family tradition to seek relief in the courts — was a primary source of his falling out with his father and brother, Prince William.
His grudge with the press runs deep. He blames it for the death of his mother, Princess Diana, who was killed in a car crash in 1997 while being pursued by paparazzi in Paris, and for attacks on his wife, Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, that led the couple to abandon royal life and move to the United States in 2020.
“They continue to come after me, they have made my wife’s life an absolute misery,” he testified as he choked back tears in the witness box during the trial in January.
Attorney David Sherborne said the Daily Mail and its sister publication, Mail on Sunday, used its journalists, freelance reporters and private eyes for “clear, systematic and sustained use of unlawful information gathering” to snoop on his clients.
Defense lawyer Antony White said the case relied on conjecture and inferences when the more likely source of information was “ordinary, legitimate journalism.” He said Harry was “inclined to see unlawful evidence gathering, in particular voicemail interception, everywhere.”
Other claimants in the case were actor Sadie Frost, anti‑racism activist Doreen Lawrence, former politician Simon Hughes and John’s husband, David Furnish.
The Mail trial played out differently from the Mirror case, with more journalists defending their work in court. Some Mail reporters pointed to official mouthpieces, such as a palace spokesperson, and others named their sources to dispute Harry’s assertion that his “social circles were not leaky.”
“They were not all tight-lipped,” Katie Nicholl, a former Mail on Sunday editor, said about Harry’s associates. “I had very good sources in the inner circle.”
Please read our comment policy before commenting.