Prince Harry sued the Daily Mail for snooping and ended up paying it: $13 million from him, Elton John and 5 others
Prince Harry, Elton John, Liz Hurley, Sadie Frost and three others were ordered to pay Daily Mail publisher Associated Newspapers an initial £9.54m ($13m) in legal costs after losing their UK privacy case. Key details and what comes next.
Somewhere there is a group chat of seven extremely famous people trying to figure out how to split a check.
The thing about suing a tabloid in Britain is that if you lose, you don't just lose. You lose, and then the tabloid sends you its legal bill, and the legal bill is larger than most people's houses. Per ABC News, Prince Harry and six co-claimants have been ordered to pay an initial $13 million to Associated Newspapers Limited, publisher of the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday, after their High Court privacy case against the company collapsed in July.
Who's on the hook
The full list of people who will be writing a check, per Variety:
- Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex
- Sir Elton John
- David Furnish, Elton's husband, which means that household is paying twice
- Elizabeth Hurley
- Sadie Frost
- Sir Simon Hughes, former politician
- Baroness Doreen Lawrence
The initial sum is £9.54 million, due by 4 p.m. on August 28, according to CNN. One week. I have had longer to return a sweater.
The group alleged the Mail had its phones tapped and its voicemails intercepted. The Mail's response is now a line item on an invoice.
How the number got so big
The seven sued over stories published between 1997 and 2015, alleging a buffet of unlawful information gathering: private investigators, voicemail interception, phone tapping, "blagging," paying police with links to PIs, and impersonating people to get medical records, per Deadline. Associated Newspapers called it all "preposterous smears" and, after winning, an overwhelming victory for its journalists. Harry called the ruling a "whitewash." Both sides, it turns out, own a thesaurus.
Justice Matthew Nicklin dismissed the case in July, saying the claimants hadn't proved their allegations. Then came Friday's costs judgment, which, per the AP, is where things got expensive:
- Associated Newspapers is seeking around £34.4 million in total costs.
- The judge called that figure "excessive."
- He then refused to cap it anyway, reasoning that a cap would be too broad-brush, risk unfairness, and look arbitrary.
- Costs are to be calculated on an "indemnity basis," which, per CNN, means the publisher doesn't have to prove its bill is reasonable; the claimants have to prove it isn't.
- The publisher had asked for over £9.9 million up front. The claimants argued for £7.9 million. They got £9.54 million, which is to say, almost exactly what the Mail wanted.
The claimants reportedly bought insurance covering roughly half the estimated total, per the AP, so the real question is how the other half shakes out among seven people with very different bank balances. Nobody is telling me how this conversation went. I have to imagine it. I am imagining it constantly.
Context, of which there is a lot
Harry, for the record, has a 2-1 record against British tabloid publishers: per CNN, he won against Rupert Murdoch's News Group Newspapers and against Mirror Group Newspapers before this one. He also, back in 2023, was ordered to pay this same publisher about £48,000 in a separate libel matter, per Deadline, which now looks adorable.
Simon Hughes told PA Media he's considering an appeal on the costs ruling. And per NewsNation, the timing is chef's kiss: the decision landed shortly after Harry and Meghan announced they'd be returning to the U.K. with their children. Welcome home! Here's your bill.
Thirty years of alleged snooping, a nine-week trial, dozens of witnesses, a prince who flew in from California to testify. Final score: the Daily Mail gets paid.
