The British High Court ruled in favor of Daily Mail publisher Associated Newspapers on July 8, 2026, dismissing all 97 allegations of unlawful information gathering brought by Prince Harry and several other public figures.
Judge Matthew Nicklin determined that the claimants failed to prove that information was obtained through illegal means.
The plaintiffs may now face a 50 million pound legal bill as the publisher seeks to recover costs.
The lawsuit, initially filed in 2022, alleged that the media outlet engaged in wiretapping, voicemail interception, and obtaining information by deception to target the private lives of high-profile individuals.
Justice Nicklin noted that Prince Harry's evidence often went beyond factual testimony into advancing arguments on the issues.
The Duke of Sussex has previously expressed severe criticism of the media, stating in 2021 that the media contributed to the death of his mother, Princess Diana.
During his testimony against the Daily Mail, the duke described the paper's coverage as "terrifying" and said it left him "really worried something bad was going to happen."
He added that his life had been made "an absolute misery."
Prince Harry criticized the High Court decision, calling the ruling a "whitewash."
He previously achieved legal success against other publishers, including winning a civil case in December 2023 against Mirror Group Newspapers, where a judge found evidence of widespread illegal activity.
He was awarded 140,600 pounds in damages.
In January 2025, the duke accepted a financial settlement and an apology from the Sun newspaper for serious intrusions into his private life.
David Sherborne, Harry's QC, stated the settlement was a vindication for "the hundreds of other claimants who were strong-armed into settling."
Baroness Doreen Lawrence, mother of murdered teenager Stephen Lawrence, also served as a plaintiff and testified in January 2026 regarding extensive surveillance on her personal communications.
She claimed the Mail tapped her landline phone, hacked into her voicemails, monitored her bank account and phone bills, and paid police officers for information.
The defense contested the credibility of the legal claims, pointing to key witness private investigator Gavin Burrows, who denied signing a prior statement admitting to illegal acts.
Judge Nicklin said Burrows' credibility had been "comprehensively undermined."
Associated Newspapers strongly rejected the allegations throughout the trial, stating that its journalists used legitimate sourcing methods.
Following the verdict, a spokesperson called the judgment "an overwhelming victory for the Daily Mail and its journalists, and for a free press generally."
Legal campaign group Hacked Off indicated that an appeal against the ruling remains highly improbable due to court system limitations.
