UK court dismisses Prince Harry's privacy lawsuit against tabloid

Prince Harry, along with several other high-profile British personalities on Tuesday lost their privacy lawsuits against the publisher of the Daily Mail, marking a significant setback in the Duke of Sussex’s long-running legal battle with the British tabloid press.London’s High Court dismissed the claims against Associated Newspapers, with Justice Matthew Nicklin ruling that the claimants had failed to prove that information published about them had been obtained unlawfully.Harry, along with singer Elton John, actor-model Elizabeth Hurley and others, had alleged that dozens of articles published in the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday between the 1990s and 2011 were based on information obtained through unlawful methods, including phone hacking and the use of private investigators.However, Associated Newspapers denied the allegations, describing them as baseless. Following the ruling, the publisher called the verdict “an overwhelming victory for the Daily Mail and its journalists.”In his judgment, Justice Nicklin said the claimants were required to prove that the information had been obtained unlawfully and that suspicion alone was insufficient. “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 ruling stated.Harry, who has long blamed sections of the British media for the death of his mother, Princess Diana, in a 1997 Paris car crash, has pursued multiple legal cases against newspaper publishers in recent years. He has previously won a case against the publisher of the Daily Mirror and reached a settlement with Rupert Murdoch’s British newspaper group.During the trial in January, Harry became emotional while describing the impact of media coverage on his family. He told the court that the Daily Mail had made his wife Meghan’s life “an absolute misery” and had previously described bringing the case as his “public duty.”