Prince Harry's media privacy crusade has backfired. Mr Justice Nicklin has thrown out all 97 claims in the High Court case brought by the Duke of Sussex and six celebrity co-claimants.
A case built on sand
The group - which included Sir Elton John, David Furnish, Sadie Frost, Sir Simon Hughes, Baroness Doreen Lawrence and Liz Hurley - had alleged unlawful information gathering by a national newspaper. In a 426-page ruling, the judge said the claims lacked evidence. The case was further damaged by the involvement of Graham Johnson, a former phone-hacking journalist turned 'campaigner for press standards', who reportedly obtained documents and witnesses for money.
The cost of losing
Now the financial consequences are emerging. In legal disputes of this type, claimants typically take out insurance to cover their own and the other side's costs in the event of a loss. The publisher is pursuing up to £34.5 million in expenses from the group. The claimants' insurance coverage totals £16.2 million, leaving a potential shortfall of £18.2 million - around £2.6 million per person.
Financial strain and a tarnished brand
Harry's reported $100 million Netflix deal may have once made such a bill look trivial, but recent signals tell a different story. The couple's Australia tour drew criticism for perceived money-grabbing, and Meghan's 'As Ever' line sets high prices for candles and jam. Meanwhile, rumours suggest American audiences are losing patience with the pair, especially Harry.
There is also an irony at the heart of his public image. Harry has campaigned for privacy while publishing intimate royal conversations in his £20 million memoir 'Spare'. As living costs squeeze households across Europe and the US, an entitled prince recounting his difficult palace childhood holds less appeal with each telling. That may explain why Harry is keen to make peace with King Charles - without the royal connection, his brand loses its unique selling point.
