LONDON (AP) 鈥� final lawsuit aimed at taming the British tabloids ended in defeat Tuesday as a judge said he failed to prove his privacy invasion claims 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. He said there was a shortage of evidence to support the claims and found a possibility that the reporting came from legitimate sources.
鈥淚n substance, the claimants鈥� case invites the Court to conclude that, because the information was private and because Associated cannot positively explain how it was sourced, the article must have been unlawfully sourced,鈥� Nicklin wrote. 鈥淭hat is not a permissible approach.鈥�
The ruling scuttles a bid by Harry and six others, including singer Elton John and actor-model Elizabeth Hurley, seeking substantial damages but could leave them with massive legal bills. ANL put the legal costs for both sides above 50 million pounds ($67 million) for years of case preparation and an 11-week trial.
The publisher called it an 鈥渙verwhelming victory鈥� and a 鈥渕agnificent vindication鈥� of the Mail’s journalism.
The newspapers had denied the allegations as 鈥減reposterous,鈥� insisting the roughly 50 articles at issue were based on lawful sources including friends, royal aides and publicists who offered information to reporters.
Harry said the court had denied him the justice and accountability he sought.
鈥淚t is a complete and obvious whitewash, but sadly not altogether unexpected,” Harry said in a joint statement with another claimant, anti鈥憆acism activist Doreen Lawrence. 鈥淗owever, the lengths to which the court has gone to exonerate the Mail is as shocking as it is totally unwarranted.鈥�
Harry’s campaign against the press yields mixed results
The 436-page 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 on his life.
Harry in 2023 that condemned the publishers of the Daily Mirror for 鈥渨idespread and habitual鈥� phone hacking. Last year, Rupert Murdoch鈥檚 flagship U.K. tabloid, The Sun, made an for intruding on his life for years and agreed to pay substantial damages to settle .
Mark Stephens, a media lawyer not involved in the case, said Harry’s first significant loss was due to a lack of evidence such as admissions of culpability that he had in previous lawsuits.
鈥淭his was always a mosaic case where little inferences from different things were being put together by the lawyers for Prince Harry,鈥� Stephens said. 鈥淎ssociated Newspapers’ lawyers cleverly rearranged the tiles to show an innocent picture as opposed to the culpable picture that the claimants’ lawyers were trying to demonstrate.鈥�
The verdict, released remotely with no court hearing, coincided with , 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 鈥� in which he broke with royal family tradition to seek relief in the courts 鈥� was a primary source of his falling out with his father and brother, Prince William.
His grudge with the tabloids runs deep and his legal actions are part of his larger quest to reform the news media that he says damaged his relationships and made him 鈥� .鈥�
He blames the press 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, that led the couple to abandon royal life and move to the United States in 2020.
鈥淭hey continue to come after me, they have made my wife鈥檚 life an absolute misery,鈥� he testified as he choked back tears in the witness box during the trial in January.
Newspaper editor says Harry is a hypocrite
Associated Newspapers’ Editor-in-Chief Paul Dacre called Harry 鈥渁 confused and angry young man鈥� and said he felt sorry he had been drawn into the case. He mocked Harry鈥檚 tell-all memoir, 鈥淪pare,鈥� which included details of drug use, losing his virginity, and dishing dirt on his kin.
鈥淭here isn鈥檛 a laundry in the cosmos big enough to wash all the dirty linen he has aired about his own family,鈥� Dacre said. 鈥淔or him to complain about his privacy being invaded takes not just the biscuit but the whole tin. Poor Harry.鈥�
Attorney David Sherborne said at trial that the Daily Mail and its sister publication, Mail on Sunday, used their journalists, freelance reporters and private eyes for 鈥渃lear, systematic and sustained use of unlawful information gathering鈥� to snoop on his clients.
Defense lawyer Antony White said Harry was inclined to see unlawful evidence gathering everywhere but the more likely source of stories about him came from 鈥渙rdinary, legitimate journalism.鈥�
Other claimants in the case were actor Sadie Frost, former politician Simon Hughes and John鈥檚 husband, David Furnish.
The Mail trial played out differently from the Mirror case, with journalists parading to court to defend their work. Some Mail reporters pointed to official mouthpieces, such as a palace spokesperson, and others named their sources to dispute Harry鈥檚 assertion that his 鈥渟ocial circles were not leaky.鈥�
鈥淭hey were not all tight-lipped,鈥� Katie Nicholl, a former Mail on Sunday editor, said about Harry鈥檚 associates. 鈥淚 had very good sources in the inner circle.鈥� ___
Associated Press writer Jill Lawless contributed to this report.
Copyright © 2026 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, written or redistributed.
