On Wednesday, January 21, 2026, Prince Harry shared with London’s High Court that he felt isolated and extremely wary due to the relentless media scrutiny by the Daily Mail. The trial, lasting nine weeks, scrutinizes claims of systematic privacy breaches. Harry, alongside celebrities like Elton John and Elizabeth Hurley, accuses Associated Newspapers Ltd. of initiating illegal data-gathering campaigns over 20 years.
David Sherborne, his attorney, alleged in his initial statement that the publisher had a history of hiring private detectives who employed unethical methods to gain celebrity news. Harry divulged that the level of surveillance was so extreme that it was “disturbing to feel that my every move, thought or feeling was being tracked and monitored just for the Mail to make money out of it,” according to court filings. The supposed monitoring caused great fear among his loved ones and a significant strain on his personal relationships, leading Harry to become “paranoid beyond belief.”
Harry’s lawsuit for privacy invasion is his third legal action against British tabloids; tens of millions of dollars are at stake. Other plaintiffs with Harry include actress Sadie Frost and David Furnish, Elton John’s spouse, who allege that investigators bugged their cars, procured confidential personal records, and eavesdropped on private phone conversations.
Associated Newspapers has emphatically denied all accusations, labeling them as “preposterous” and claiming that the articles mentioned in the lawsuit were based on legitimate sources, including friends who were willing to disclose information about their famous acquaintances. Antony White, the defense attorney, argued that royal press officers, publicists, freelance journalists, and photographers all served as valid sources of information for Daily Mail stories.
Harry, dressed in a dark blue suit, waved at reporters as he entered the court through a side entrance. A spokesperson declared that he was feeling “confident and ready” ahead of the trial. In the courtroom, he sat near Hurley and Frost, while John monitored the proceedings remotely.
The suit follows Harry’s 2023 victory in court against the Daily Mirror, where a judge criticized publishers for widespread phone hacking and awarded him £140,600 ($188,000) in damages. Separately, News Group Newspapers reached a settlement with Harry last year, issuing an unprecedented apology and agreeing to pay substantial damages after acknowledging years of intrusive behavior.
Harry has characterized his legal campaign as part of a broader mission to reform British media practices. He attributes aggressive press tactics to the 1997 death of his mother, Princess Diana, who died in a car crash in Paris while being chased by paparazzi. Harry has also stated that persistent media attacks on his wife Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, played a role in their 2020 decision to move to the United States.
White, the defense attorney, questioned the foundations of the lawsuit, arguing that the plaintiffs built their case on weak inferences by attempting to link published articles with payments made to private investigators. He stated that witnesses ranging from editors to veteran reporters would dispute the allegations and explain their actual sources, which frequently included individuals close to the subjects.
Associated Newspapers has argued that many claims were filed too late, noting some allegations date back to 1993 despite lawsuits being filed in 2022. Judge Matthew Nicklin refused to dismiss the cases on statute of limitations grounds but indicated he would revisit that defense after hearing all the evidence presented during the trial.
Sherborne accused the company of staunch denials while simultaneously destroying records and allowing a large number of documents to vanish, preventing plaintiffs from discovering the full extent of alleged misconduct. The attorney suggested that Associated Newspapers presented itself as operating ethically while knowing it harbored damaging secrets.
The attorney informed the court that his clients were unaware they were victims of phone hacking until private investigator Gavin Burrows came forward in 2021. Burrows initially claimed he performed “hundreds of jobs” for the Mail between 2000 and 2005, with Harry, Hurley, Frost, John, and Furnish representing only a small portion of his targets.
However, Burrows later recanted his sworn statement and denied ever working for the publication. White argued that a significant part of the plaintiffs’ case collapses without Burrows as a supporting witness, noting that several claimants have stated they would never have filed lawsuits without the investigator’s initial testimony.
Sherborne minimized the importance of Burrows to the overall case, noting that other witnesses have confirmed the investigator did perform work for the newspapers. He suggested that Burrows’ reversal could stem from pressure or incentives provided by the defense.
The trial could potentially put hundreds of jobs at Associated Newspapers at risk, according to company statements about the litigation’s financial stakes. Defense lawyers have underscored the seriousness of allegations that could harm the publisher’s reputation and business operations if proven true.
Baroness Doreen Lawrence and former Liberal Democrat deputy leader Simon Hughes also joined the lawsuit as plaintiffs. The case now encompasses individuals from political and activist backgrounds who allege they suffered privacy violations, in addition to entertainment figures.
The nine-week trial signifies the culmination of years of legal preparation and discovery battles between the parties. Both sides have compiled extensive witness lists and document collections to support their differing narratives about journalistic practices at one of Britain’s most prominent newspaper groups.
