Prince Harry has suffered a significant setback in his long-running campaign against sections of the British media after the High Court ruled overwhelmingly in favour of Associated Newspapers Ltd (ANL), publisher of the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday.

The Duke of Sussex has repeatedly described his legal campaign against parts of the British press as both a personal mission and his life's work.

After winning his 2023 case against Mirror Group Newspapers, he said: "I've been told that slaying dragons will get you burned," adding that it was "a worthwhile price to pay." In 2025, he also secured a settlement with News Group Newspapers, whose publishers apologised for "serious intrusion" and unlawful activities carried out by private investigators.

Tuesday's judgment marked a clear reversal.

Harry and six other high-profile claimants, including Elton John and Doreen Lawrence, failed to convince the court that ANL had engaged in unlawful information gathering.

Mr Justice Nicklin ruled that suspicion alone was insufficient evidence to establish liability.

Assessing Harry's testimony, the judge said it was clear the duke wanted the court to understand the personal impact of the allegations, but concluded that this had sometimes taken him beyond factual evidence and into advocacy.

Mr Justice Nicklin described that as "not uncommon," noting that many litigants naturally seek to argue their own case.

He added that Harry, like the other claimants, had limited evidence regarding the disputed issues.

The ruling could carry substantial financial consequences.

Harry and his fellow claimants may now face combined legal costs exceeding £50 million, although insurance could reduce the eventual liability.

Harry has previously acknowledged that his decision to challenge Britain's tabloid press contributed to his estrangement from the royal family, whose longstanding approach has been to "never complain, never explain." According to his memoir, Spare, King Charles described such legal action as a "suicide mission." Harry also accused royal household offices of enabling or collaborating with parts of the media through alleged leaks, writing that he told Charles and Prince William: "I might learn to endure the press, even forgive their abuse, I might, but my own family's complicity, that was going to take longer to get over.

Pa's office, Willy's office, enabling these fiends, if not outright collaborating."

The judgment coincided with a rare visit by the California-based royal to the United Kingdom.

Harry had requested accommodation at Buckingham Palace before attending events marking the one-year countdown to the Invictus Games in Birmingham.

Buckingham Palace said insufficient notice had been given to make the necessary hospitality and staffing arrangements.

At the time the judgment was delivered remotely, Harry was speaking at Chatham House in London during the first of several Invictus Games events.

He completed his speech before leaving the room for a period, while the claimants' barrister, David Sherborne, arrived at the venue.

Harry and Doreen Lawrence responded jointly, describing the ruling as "a complete and obvious whitewash but sadly not altogether unexpected.

However, the lengths to which the court has gone to exonerate the Mail is as shocking as it is totally unwarranted." They added that they had sought justice and accountability but had received neither, arguing that there was "one rule for the newspapers and another for the claimants."

Harry has frequently linked his campaign against sections of the media to the death of his mother, Diana, Princess of Wales, and has said he is determined to protect his own family from similar press intrusion.

While earlier legal actions produced notable victories, Tuesday's ruling offered little support for his broader campaign.

The court concluded that although Harry may have genuinely believed some stories were obtained unlawfully, belief and suspicion did not amount to proof.