Prince Harry and a group of high-profile British figures have lost their privacy lawsuit against the publisher of the Daily Mail, marking a major setback in the Duke of Sussex's long-running
legal battle against the British tabloid press.
In a ruling delivered Tuesday, London's High Court dismissed claims brought by Harry, singer Elton John and other public figures against Associated Newspapers, publisher of the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday. The claimants alleged that dozens of articles published between the 1990s and 2011 relied on information obtained through unlawful means.
Harry, 41, was in Britain when the judgment was handed down. The duke has pursued multiple legal actions against British media organizations, arguing that sections of the press have repeatedly abused their power and violated his privacy.
He has frequently linked his campaign against the tabloids to the death of his mother, Princess Diana, who was killed in a 1997 car crash in Paris while being pursued by photographers. Harry has described the lawsuit as a matter of "public duty."
During testimony in January, Harry became emotional as he told the court that relentless media coverage had made life "an absolute misery" for his wife, Meghan.
The ruling represents one of Harry's most significant courtroom defeats, despite previous legal successes. He won a case against the publisher of the Daily Mirror and earlier reached a settlement with Rupert Murdoch's British newspaper group over separate claims.
Associated Newspapers rejected the allegations throughout the proceedings, describing them as unfounded. Following Tuesday's judgment, the publisher said the claims had been dismissed in their entirety, calling the decision "an overwhelming victory for the Daily Mail and its journalists."
In his ruling, Judge Matthew Nicklin said the claimants were required to prove that the information published about them had been obtained unlawfully. He found that suspicion alone did not meet the legal threshold.
"The court rejected the argument that, simply because information was private, and because Associated could not positively explain how it had been sourced, the relevant article must have been unlawfully sourced," the judge said in a summary of the ruling.
