Royal Deep Dive: An Update on Harry and Meghan's Lawsuits
I usually try to avoid talking about Meghan and Harry - I just think they have too much drama constantly happening and since they aren’t working royals anymore, they seem less relevant to my monthly “Royal Report.”
While this year they did achieve a lot - big Netflix and Spotify deals, launching their foundation - it’s 2021 that is going to be the true test of their staying power. Not only do they have to actually produce worthwhile content for those deals, they also have find a way to overcome a slew of legal drama. I originally posted on this in September, but it still feels under-reported to me in the US press. In the last eighteen months they have filed six different lawsuits against the media and paparazzi. Some are justified, some seem more damaging than helpful to me, and others just seem like way more trouble than they are worth. It can be confusing for the casual royal watcher, so I thought I would update my breakdown of the lawsuits, where they stand and what they reveal.
Lawsuit One
Who it’s against: Associated Newspapers (The Mail on Sunday)
What the complaint is: This lawsuit starts with a People Magazine cover story in 2019 that involved five of Meghan’s friends speaking anonymously to defend her. In the article they refer to a letter that Meghan wrote her father. Her father then went to the tabloids with the letter and the Mail on Sunday published it. Meghan’s lawsuit, filed in the UK, claims that the Mail on Sunday violated her copyright on the letter as it’s writer, and published it illegally, also changing or leaving out parts of it. She is also filing for misuse of private information and a breach of the Data Protection Act.
Major Developments: Meghan has lost on several key points in pre-trial hearings - she had her accusations that the paper “acted dishonestly” thrown out, and both her and the paper were reprimanded for using the press to litigate it. She also filed to have to names of her anonymous friends in the People article kept private, which she won for the time being, but the judge also said that may change if it’s necessary for the case.
The most recent hearings though have been especially WILD - she replaced her lawyer, and the Mail on Sunday asked to amend it’s defense to include the recent biography of Harry and Meghan, “Finding Freedom” as it included a huge range of deeply personal details that could have only come from the couple. The author of the book submitted a statement saying they hadn’t cooperated with the book, and then Meghan’s lawyer basically trashed the book and pointed out small details in it, claiming they were essentially made up. THEN a month later, Meghan’s legal admitted that she HAD cooperated with the book by having friends speak with the authors! It was not a good look for her to admit to lying to the court.
They have also dragged the other royals into it and royal team members. The Mail on Sunday lawyers alleged that the letter was not written just by Meghan, therefore not her sole intellectual property - this likely came to light from the emails and texts that they subpoenaed. This led to her admitting that Jason Knauf, who was at the time their Communications Secretary and is now the CEO of William and Kate’s foundation, and “two senior royals” also advised her on the letter. It’s a big risk to potentially have them all appear in a trial, which the palace is not happy about.
Where it stands in the legal system: Meghan has a hearing on January 20th. She has filed for a “summary judgement” that will. If that isn’t granted, she has successfully had the trial delayed until October or November due to confidential reasons (this has fueled pregnancy speculation).
My hot take: I don’t think it’s possible that Meghan’s friends would go to People without her clear permission, and I think that she wanted the judge to rule that their identities wouldn’t be kept secret so that she could gracefully exit the lawsuit claiming to “protect” them. If Associated Newspapers had backed down and settled she would win the moral victory, and they are clearly planning to move forward and drag her through the mud. With“Finding Freedom” and the palace staff involvement as part of the defense, Meghan is going to get even more publicly called out for everything she did behind the scenes and away from palace eyes to control her image. Given that the author is who the judge called out as the recipient of leaked court documents from her team, it seems likely that the Mail on Sunday will be able to show how close and collaborative that relationship was. Even if it doesn’t prove anything legally, what they accuse her of will stick.
Lawsuit Two
Who it’s against: The Sun (UK Newspaper)
What the complaint is: Prince Harry filed a lawsuit against The Sun newspaper the same day Meghan sued the Associated Newspapers over "illegal interception of voicemail messages.” This is widely believed to be related to phone hacking incidents in the 2000s, where the royal family did win a decisive victory.
Where it stands in the legal system: Big question mark here, it’s the lawsuit we have heard the least about.
My hot take: This and the Associated Newspapers suits were filed on the same day, when Harry and Meghan officially declared war on the UK media. It may not actually come to fruition, but did make that announcement more impactful as it added another title to the list.
Lawsuit Three
Who it’s against: Splash News (photo agency/papparazzi)
What the complaint is: Meghan is suing Splash News on the grounds that Archie’s privacy was violated, after one of its photographers took photos of her (the ones above) and Archie during a walk on Vancouver Island. Meghan says that data protection laws were broken when the images were sold to British newspapers The Mail and The Sun.
Where it stands in the legal system: The UK arm of Splash news entered administration (adjacent to bankruptcy) and the person officiating over their administration settled it by agreeing to not photograph her again, but the US arm of Splash is still fighting her over it.
My hot take: Meghan very publicly claimed the win over the UK branch, but I think that was a result of their financial issues and wanting it settled. In these photos, Meghan seems to be on a public hiking trail, is looking directly at the camera and smiling, her security aren’t even reacting to the photographer and Archie’s face isn’t visible. I don’t think this is a clear win for them in the US, especially since the photos were taken in Canada where the law is unclear. If this goes to trial, it may also come out that she has worked with paparazzi on other occasions (something discussed by photographers on Twitter), which would be a terrible look.
Lawsuit Four
Who it’s against: X17
What the complaint is: The couple launched a lawsuit against an unidentfied paparazzo, later revealed to be working for X17, after they used a drone to take photos of Archie and Meghan’s mother Doria in the driveway of their home at the time (Tyler Perry’s mansion).
Where it stands in the legal system: Meghan won this one and rightly so.
My hot take: No one should be using a drone to invade private property and take photos of a minor. The most clear cut of all of their suits.
Lawsuit Five
Who it’s against: The Sunday Times (one of the most reputable papers in the UK)
What the complaint is: While this isn’t necessarily a full on lawsuit yet, Harry filed a complaint with The Sunday Times over an article where a source claimed he had cancelled an upcoming fundraiser for the Invictus Games, because it was going to stream on Amazon and he had just signed a big deal with Netflix.
Where it stands in the legal system: We don’t know anything except that a complaint was filed and Harry/Invictus both issued statements disputing it. That said, The Sunday Times has not amended or removed the article, so they are standing by their reporting.
My hot take: This is different from other cases because it isn’t against a “tabloid” or paparazzi, but one of the most well-regarded papers in the country. I don’t think they will back down on this and it’s potentially the most damaging to Prince Harry specifically and his image as a humanitarian and philanthropist.
Lawsuit Six
Who it’s against: The Mail on Sunday (again)
What the complaint is: The Mail published a story that extensively quoted two leaders from the Royal Marines (Prince Harry was their Captain-General before he and Meghan stepped down as working royals) saying that they hadn’t heard from Harry since he left. Harry adamantly objected to this, and sued for libel, even going as far as to say that by disparaging him, it put members of the Royal Marines at more risk for mental health risks and potential suicide because it eroded trust in the mental health programs that he supports.
Where it stands in the legal system: Harry actually won this one - the Mail published an apology and made a donation to his Invictus Games, but Harry still wants to make a statement in open court.
My hot take: While the Mail on Sunday did publish an apology and it was settled, Harry and his team felt that it was necessary to release the details of the suit afterwards. I think it is a bad bad look to claim that members of the military are likely to commit suicide because of a ding to Harry’s credibility. It seems very melodramatic and overblown to me, and I’m not sure that it makes him look better in this situation. He released it after the settlement had been made, and intentionally let media believe the matter had not been settled, then announced the next day that the public apology and donation, made over a week before, was the settlement. It all just seems sketchy to me?