My account.
You can manage the account.
Digital magazines.
The help center is open.
You should sign out.
Sections.
Join us.
Customer care.
The US and Canada.
The Global Help Center.
You can reach out.
There are careers.
The press room is located in a building.
Contact the editors.
Permissions and Reprints.
More.
Privacy policy
Your privacy rights in California.
The terms are used.
There is a site map.
You can connect with us.
Three senior judges ruled that the publisher of the British newspaper broke her privacy by reproducing parts of a letter she wrote to her father.
The Court of Appeal ruling was a victory for the right, according to the duchess. She called for a change in the tabloid industry that has long been a problem for celebrities and British royals.
Associated Newspapers said it was considering an appeal.
The Mail on Sunday and MailOnline website were found to have violated the privacy of Prince Harry's bride, by reproducing a large chunk of a letter she wrote to her father after she married him.
A hearing was held last month after the publisher appealed. The judge said that the Duchess had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the letter. The contents were not matters of public interest.
The ruling was a victory for anyone who has ever felt scared to stand up for what's right, according to a statement from the woman.
She said that the tabloid industry makes people to be cruel and profits from the lies and pain that they create.
The lawyers for Associated Newspaper disagreed with the claim that she didn't intend the letter to be seen by anyone.
They said that the letter was written with the idea that her father might leak it to journalists in mind.
The publisher argued that the publication of the letter was part of Thomas Markle's right to reply after a People magazine interview with five of his daughter's friends alleged he was "cruelly cold-shouldering" her.
The Mail on Sunday described the article as "sensational", but Vos said that it was more about the new public revelation than about the negative media reports about him.
Associated Newspapers argued that the authors of the book about her and Harry made private information public by cooperating with Omid Scobie and Carolyn Durand.
The lawyers for the duchess denied that they collaborated with the authors. Knauf told the court that he gave the writers information and discussed it with Harry.
Knauf's evidence was a dramatic twist in the case.
The court was misled about the extent of her cooperation with the book's authors.
The duchess said she didn't remember the discussions with Knauf when she gave evidence, and had no intention of misleading the court.
The former star of the American TV legal drama "Suits" married Harry, a grandson of Queen Elizabeth II, at Windsor Castle in May.
In early 2020 they announced that they were quitting royal duties and moving to North America because of the racist attitudes of the British media. They have settled in Santa Barbara with their two children.
In her statement Thursday, she said she had been the target of a number of attacks since the lawsuit began. She accused the publisher of dragging out proceedings in order to generate more headlines and sell more newspapers, a model that rewards chaos above truth.
A judge in the High Court ruled in February that the privacy and copyrighted material of Meghan had been violated. The case should go to trial according to Associated Newspapers.
The publisher said in a statement Thursday that the jury should only consider the evidence tested at trial, since Mr. Knauf's evidence raises issues as to the Duchess's credibility.
Lawyer Mark Stephens, who specializes in media law and is not connected to the case, said he believed the publisher will appeal, though it would be unusual for Britain's Supreme Court to take such a case. The European Court of Human Rights could be appealed to by the publisher.
There is an issue of principle here, which is whether this case should be finished before a trial without testing the evidence. The ruling did not resolve the question of whether the letter to Thomas was intended to be used as a source of information for the purposes of leaking or publishing.
I think that the trial will distract from the pain of the bride, and that Associated Newspapers have a right to do that.
_
Danica Kirka is in London.
The U.K. court has backed the woman in her privacy dispute.
There is an update post.
California residents can opt out of sharing their name and contact information with third parties.
Privacy policy
The website cannot function without these cookies. Some parts of the site will not work if you block or alert your browser about these cookies. The cookies do not store any personally identifiable information.
We can measure and improve the performance of our site with the help of these cookies. They help us to know which pages are popular and which are not. If you don't allow these cookies, we won't know when you have visited our site and we won't be able to monitor its performance.
The cookies are set by a range of social media services that we have added to the site to enable you to share our content with your friends and networks. They can track your browser and build up a profile of your interests. If you don't allow these cookies, you may not be able to see the sharing tools on other websites.
Our advertising partners may set targeting cookies on our site. They can be used to build a profile of your interests and show you relevant advertising on other sites. They are based on your internet device's unique identification. You can turn off cookies for targeted advertising here. Cookies are on when the button is green. Targeting cookies are turned off when the button is red.
Enhancements to the website can be provided by these cookies. Some or all of the services may not work if you don't allow these cookies.
