Prince Harry loses privacy case against UK tabloid publisher

London (CNN) — The Duke of Sussex and six others have lost a high-stakes case against the publisher of the Daily Mail over allegations of unlawful information gathering.

All of the claims were dismissed by a UK High Court judge on Tuesday after the group failed to prove the allegations against Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL).

The judge, Matthew Nicklin, said in a summary of his ruling that the claimants’ allegations were serious but suspicion was not enough. He said the claimants had to prove that the information used by ANL for its stories had been obtained unlawfully.

“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,” he wrote in the summary.

Prince Harry described the High Court’s decision as “a whitewash.” “It is a complete and obvious whitewash, but sadly not altogether unexpected,” he said in a statement on Tuesday. “However, the lengths to which the court has gone to exonerate the Mail is as shocking as it is totally unwarranted.”

“We came to court seeking justice and accountability. But we have received neither. This judgment represents a complete reversal of the position which previous judges have taken in relation to the hacking claims successfully brought against (other British newspapers).”

Harry, who arrived in the United Kingdom on Monday evening, was one of several high-profile figures who accused ANL of using unlawful practices at its titles for stories between 1993 and 2011.

The group of household names also included singer Elton John and his husband David Furness as well as actress Elizabeth Hurley, campaigner Doreen Lawrence, actress Sadie Frost and former politician Simon Hughes.

ANL welcomed the High Court ruling in a statement saying it was “an overwhelming victory for the Daily Mail and its journalists.”

“In every case, the judge accepted the honesty of our journalists’ evidence on how they sourced their stories. This is a magnificent vindication of the Daily Mail’s journalism,” a spokesperson for the publisher said in an emailed statement. “As the judgment clearly shows, every single article was legitimately sourced.”

ANL expressed its gratitude to the judge with the spokesperson adding that “we will look to resolve outstanding issues, including the recovery of the costs we have incurred while defending ourselves against this egregious litigation.”

The court ruling was handed down as the King’s younger son and fifth in line to the British throne started a week of engagements in the UK to mark one year until the 2027 Invictus Games in Birmingham. His wife Meghan and their children Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet did not accompany the duke to London over security concerns.

Shortly before the court ruling came down, Prince Harry arrived at think tank Chatham House in London for his first public event of the week.

During the trial earlier this year, which lasted more than two months, the court heard claims from the group that ANL had allegedly engaged in a number of illegal activities, including that it tasked private investigators to engage in voicemail interception, phone tapping and “blagging” of sensitive private records through deception.

The tabloid publisher repeatedly denied any wrongdoing, insisting that its journalists reported their stories using legitimate sources and asserted the cases had been brought too late.

Harry returned to the UK earlier this year to provide his own evidence in the civil case alongside the rest of the claimants, as did several current and former ANL executives and journalists.

Under cross-examination in January, Harry said he wasn’t able to complain about the 14 stories in his case at the time of their publication because he “wasn’t allowed to,” citing the royal family’s adage: “Never complain, never explain.”

The duke became visibly emotional as he concluded his evidence, saying the Mail titles had “made my wife’s life an absolute misery.”

ANL, meanwhile, said in court that the group’s claims against the company were “threadbare” and argued that journalists working for the publisher could provide a “compelling account of a pattern of legitimate sourcing.”

The stakes were high for both sides with reputations on the line and mounting legal costs which could be as much as £50 million (almost $67 million).

The duke’s case against ANL was the third major lawsuit he has brought against several British tabloid outlets in recent years. Harry successfully launched legal challenges against Rupert Murdoch’s News Group Newspapers and Mirror Group Newspapers, after which he received apologies, admission of wrongdoing and damages.

“Although Associated Newspapers has succeeded, financially, there is no real winner in this trial. With reported legal costs of around £40-50 million, this has been a very expensive privacy case,” said Andrew Fremlin-Key, a partner specializing in media, reputation and information disputes at international law firm Withers.

“The claimants will almost certainly be considering an appeal, but there is no automatic right to one. They will need permission from the court, and the Court of Appeal will not simply re-run the trial,” he added.

A two-day hearing to hear arguments on any points of dispute and any required court orders following the judgment is expected to take place from July 29.

The build-up to Prince Harry’s homecoming has been messy when on Monday when there was confusion over where he would stay while in London.

His team had confirmed that he would stay at Buckingham Palace, but it was quickly revealed that the royal residence was no longer available as Harry had not accepted the King’s invitation to stay in time, according to a royal source.

This story has been updated with additional information.

The-CNN-Wire
™ & © 2026 Cable News Network, Inc., a Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All rights reserved.

CNN’s Lauren Kent and Max Foster contributed to this report.