Editing Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex (section)

==Privacy and the media==
===Legal issues and incidents===
====Associated Newspapers====
In January 2020, the [[Independent Press Standards Organisation]] (IPSO) sided with the ''[[Mail on Sunday]]'' over a dispute between the Duke and the newspaper regarding an Instagram photo involving Harry in which, according to the newspaper, elephants were in fact "tranquilised" and "tethered" during a relocating process. The IPSO rejected Harry's claim that the paper's description was "inaccurate" or "misleading".<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/prince-harry-loses-complaint-uk-newspaper|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200131022015/https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/prince-harry-loses-complaint-uk-newspaper|archive-date=31 January 2020|title=Prince Harry loses battle with UK newspaper over Instagram photo|work=Fox News|first=Melissa|last=Roberto|date=30 January 2020|access-date=31 January 2020|url-status=live}}</ref>

In December 2020, Harry's legal team sued [[Associated Newspapers Limited]] (ANL) for publishing a story in the ''Mail on Sunday'' claiming his working relationship with the Royal Marines had suffered post-royal departure.<ref>{{cite news|title=Prince Harry to sue Mail on Sunday publisher over 'libellous' news article|url=https://news.sky.com/story/prince-harry-to-sue-mail-on-sunday-publisher-over-libellous-news-article-12154618|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201207193241/https://news.sky.com/story/prince-harry-to-sue-mail-on-sunday-publisher-over-libellous-news-article-12154618|work=Sky News|date=7 December 2020|archive-date=7 December 2020|access-date=12 December 2020|url-status=live}}</ref> The newspaper subsequently accepted the claims were false and issued an apology. The prince's lawyer said the "substantial damages" paid by the publisher would be donated to the Invictus Games Foundation.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55888361|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210201113442/https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55888361|date=1 February 2021|title=Prince Harry accepts damages from Mail publishers over 'baseless' article|archive-date=1 February 2021|work=BBC News|access-date=1 February 2021|url-status=live}}</ref>

In February 2022, Harry filed a libel suit in the [[High Court of Justice|High Court]] against ANL for a ''Mail on Sunday'' article which alleged he was trying to keep his legal battle against the [[Home Office]] to restore his police protection secret from the public through requesting a confidentiality order on the case and that he offered to pay for police protection only after filing a lawsuit against the government.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://news.sky.com/story/prince-harry-duke-of-sussex-launches-libel-claim-against-publisher-of-the-daily-mail-12549791|title=Prince Harry: Duke of Sussex launches libel claim against publisher of the Daily Mail|work=Sky News|date=23 February 2022|access-date=23 February 2022}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/prince-harry-launches-lawsuit-against-uk-newspaper-publisher-2022-02-23/|title=Prince Harry launches lawsuit against UK newspaper publisher|work=Reuters|date=23 February 2022|access-date=24 February 2022}}</ref><ref name="Feb22-case">{{cite news|url=https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uks-prince-harry-seek-mail-sunday-libel-win-without-trial-2023-03-17/|title=UK's Prince Harry's libel case against publisher 'built on sand', London court told|work=Reuters|first1=Michael|last1=Holden|first2=Sam|last2=Tobin|date=17 March 2023|access-date=18 March 2023}}</ref> In June 2022, [[Mr Justice Nicklin]] ruled that parts of the article were potentially defamatory, though Nicklin rejected claims by Harry's lawyers that the article portrayed him as a liar.<ref name="BBC-ANL-Jul22">{{cite news|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-62090652|title=Prince Harry wins latest stage in Mail on Sunday High Court libel claim|work=BBC News|date=8 July 2022|access-date=8 July 2022}}</ref> Harry attempted to have the publisher's defence thrown out, but the judge rejected his motion in December 2023 and decided that the case should proceed to trial.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/prince-harrys-libel-claim-against-mail-sunday-publisher-must-go-trial-judge-2023-12-08/|title=Prince Harry loses bid to have publisher's libel defence thrown out|work=Reuters|date=8 December 2023|accessdate=8 December 2023}}</ref> He later ordered Harry to pay ''Mail on Sunday'' £48,447 in legal costs.<ref name=mailonsundaypayment>{{cite news|url=https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/royal-family/news/prince-harry-daily-mail-sunday-libel-payout-b2462118.html|title=Prince Harry ordered to pay £50,000 to Mail on Sunday after losing first battle in libel case|first=Maanya|last=Sachdeva|work=The Independent|date=11 December 2023|accessdate=11 December 2023}}</ref> Harry withdrew the libel claim in January 2024 and became liable for the publisher's £250,000 legal costs.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-68034322|title=Prince Harry drops libel claim against Mail on Sunday publisher|work=BBC News|first=Doug|last=Faulkner|date=19 January 2024|access-date=19 January 2024}}</ref>

In October 2022, the Duke of Sussex joined [[Doreen Lawrence]], [[Sir Elton John]], [[David Furnish]], [[Sadie Frost]], and [[Elizabeth Hurley]] in launching a legal action against ANL for their alleged "abhorrent criminal activity", which was said to involve listening to and recording people's phone calls and daily activities, obtaining sensitive information and medical records, and accessing bank accounts and financial transactions.<ref name="BBC-ANL-Oct">{{cite news|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-63164654|title=Elton John and Prince Harry sue Daily Mail publisher over 'privacy breach'|work=BBC News|first1=Daniel|last1=Sandford|first2=Tom|last2=Symonds|date=6 October 2022|access-date=7 October 2022}}</ref> In a statement, ANL described the allegations as "preposterous smears", and Gavin Burrows, the private investigator whose alleged 2021 statement was used as a key element in the case, said that the statement was not signed by him and was "a cut and paste from my evidence" of other publishers targeting individuals.<ref name="BBC-ANL-Oct"/><ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/03/31/prince-harry-hacking-dailymail-private-investigator/|title=Private investigator at centre of Prince Harry case against Daily Mail denies admitting hacking|work=The Daily Telegraph|first=Robert|last=Mendick|date=31 March 2023|access-date=4 April 2023|url-access=subscription}}</ref> In November 2023, Mr Justice Nicklin ruled that the case brought by Harry and the other claimants could proceed but unpublished material provided to the [[Leveson Inquiry]] was inadmissible as proof in this case.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-67122719|title=Prince Harry wins latest stage in case against Mail publisher|work=BBC News|first=Sean|last=Coughlan|date=10 November 2023|accessdate=11 November 2023}}</ref>

====News Group and Mirror Group newspapers====
In October 2019, it was announced that Harry had sued the ''[[Daily Mirror]]'', ''[[The Sun (United Kingdom)|The Sun]]'' and the now-defunct ''[[News of the World]]'' "in relation to alleged phone-hacking".<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-49940905|title=Harry sues Sun and Mirror's owners in phone-hacking claim|work=BBC News|date=4 October 2019|access-date=4 October 2019}}</ref> Former ''News of the World'' royal editor [[Clive Goodman]] had previously stated that he had [[News of the World royal phone hacking scandal|hacked]] Harry's phone on nine occasions.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-27413632|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240120075943/https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-27413632|title=Phone-hacking trial: Kate Middleton 'hacked 155 times'|work=BBC News|date=14 May 2014|archive-date=20 January 2024|access-date=22 November 2021|url-status=live}}</ref> [[Andy Coulson]], the editor of the ''News of the World'', apologised to Harry and his brother for invading their privacy, accepting "ultimate responsibility" for the actions of Goodman.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/media/2006/nov/29/newsoftheworld.royalsandthemedia|title=News of the World's Coulson apologises|work=The Guardian|first=Stephen|last=Brook|date=29 November 2006|access-date=22 January 2025}}</ref> In his lawsuit, Harry sought damages in excess of £200,000 from the publisher of the ''News of the World'' and ''The Sun'' and alleged an earlier agreement between [[News UK#News Group Newspapers Ltd|News Group Newspapers]] (NGN) and the royal family which would see he and William not take legal action in return for an apology had not been honoured.<ref name="Guardian-settlement"/> Both brothers brought a claim privately through their mutual attorneys, but Harry decided to pursue his case separately with a new solicitor in 2019.<ref name="Guardian-settlement">{{cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/apr/25/prince-william-murdoch-phone-hacking-claims-court-filings-prince-harry|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240329071208/https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/apr/25/prince-william-murdoch-phone-hacking-claims-court-filings-prince-harry|title=Murdoch firm 'paid secret phone-hacking settlement to Prince William'|work=The Guardian|first=Jim|last=Waterson|date=25 April 2023|archive-date=29 March 2024|access-date=25 April 2023|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2023/04/25/prince-harry-william-kate-media-coronation/|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230604212524/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2023/04/25/prince-harry-william-kate-media-coronation/|title=Blindsided by Prince Harry again, the royals must be feeling hacked off|work=The Telegraph|first=Camilla|last=Tominey|date=25 April 2023|archive-date=4 June 2023|access-date=26 April 2023|url-access=subscription|url-status=live}}</ref> In July 2023, the judge ruled that part of Harry's case involving allegations of illegal information gathering would go to trial but his phone-hacking claims were dismissed for being made too late.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-66322279|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230727095446/https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-66322279|title=Prince Harry set for court showdown with The Sun publisher|first1=Sean|last1=Seddon|first2=Tom|last2=Symonds|work=BBC News|date=27 July 2023|archive-date=27 July 2023|access-date=27 July 2023|url-status=live}}</ref> In May 2024, [[Mr Justice Fancourt]] refused Harry the permission to include claims against [[Rupert Murdoch]], expand his case's scope back to 1994 and 1995 to cover allegations involving his mother or to add new allegations from 2016 involving his then-girlfriend Meghan.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3ggk2erkkvo|title=Harry loses bid to name Murdoch in hacking claim|work=BBC News|first=Ido|last=Vock|date=21 May 2024|access-date=21 May 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240521120727/https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3ggk2erkkvo|archive-date=21 May 2024|url-status=live}}</ref> In October 2024, the judge announced that the two sides should either settle or go to trial in January 2025 and refused to let Harry's team include allegations that bugs were placed in rooms and cars, and trackers placed on vehicles as "no particulars whatsoever of such allegations" were provided.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.thetimes.com/uk/royal-family/article/prince-harry-allegations-claims-tabloid-journalist-2c52zvphd|title=Prince Harry refused permission to amend tabloid bugging claims|work=[[The Times]]|first=David|last=Brown|date=4 October 2024|access-date=7 October 2024|url-access=subscription}}</ref> In January 2025, the two parties settled with NGN paying more than £10 million in pay outs and legal fees in the settlements involving both Harry and former Labour deputy leader [[Tom Watson, Baron Watson of Wyre Forest|Tom Watson]].<ref name="NGN-settlement">{{cite news|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cp3wn1k6drqo|title=Sun owner to pay Prince Harry 'substantial' damages|work=BBC News|first1=Aleks|last1=Phillips|first2=Alex|last2=Smith|first3=Katie|last3=Razzall|date=22 January 2025|access-date=22 January 2025}}</ref> NGN made a "full and unequivocal apology" for "serious intrusion" by ''The Sun'' between 1996 and 2011, for "phone hacking, surveillance and misuse of private information by journalists and private investigators instructed by them at the ''News of the World''" and the intrusion into the life of his mother, and admitted "incidents of unlawful activity" were carried out by private investigators working for the newspaper, but "not by journalists".<ref name="NGN-settlement"/> The BBC reported on the "scrapped case", highlighting NGN's statement which said that the settlement agreement "drew a line under the past" and that they rejected the claims that would have been made in court about a [[Cover-up|corporate cover-up]].<ref>{{cite news |last1=Coughlan |first1=Sean |title=Has Prince Harry got what he wanted after tabloid apology |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c2l0kzypgz4o |access-date=23 January 2025 |work=BBC News |date=22 January 2025}}</ref>

Lawyers for the ''Mirror'' denied accessing Harry's voicemail messages and other allegations, but admitted to instructing "private investigators to unlawfully obtain private information" about Harry on a single occasion that involved him visiting [[Chinawhite (nightclub)|Chinawhite]].<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.newsweek.com/prince-harry-very-private-person-lawyers-memoir-spare-1771357|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230424171408/https://www.newsweek.com/prince-harry-very-private-person-lawyers-memoir-spare-1771357|title=Prince Harry's Lawyers Say He's a 'Very Private Person' Amid Memoir Storm|work=Newsweek|first=Jack|last=Royston|date=6 January 2023|archive-date=24 April 2023|access-date=11 January 2023|url-status=live}}</ref> In January 2023, a High Court judge ruled that Harry's lawsuit against [[Mirror Group Newspapers]] (MGN) as well as other similar lawsuits against the publisher would go to trial in May 2023.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/prince-harry-lawsuit-against-newspaper-publisher-set-may-trial-2023-03-08/|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230308165143/https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/prince-harry-lawsuit-against-newspaper-publisher-set-may-trial-2023-03-08/|title=Prince Harry lawsuit against newspaper publisher set for May trial|work=Reuters|date=8 March 2023|archive-date=8 March 2023|access-date=8 March 2023|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite magazine|title=Prince Harry to Appear as a Witness in London Court Trial This Summer for Phone Hacking Case|url=https://people.com/royals/prince-harry-appear-witness-london-court-trial-mirror-group-newspapers/|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231226225639/https://people.com/royals/prince-harry-appear-witness-london-court-trial-mirror-group-newspapers/|date=7 April 2023|archive-date=26 December 2023|access-date=7 April 2023|magazine=People|first=Janine|last=Henni|url-status=live}}</ref> At the beginning of trial, MGN apologised for one instance of unlawful information gathering against Harry and added that his legal challenge "warrants compensation".<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65541046|title=Prince Harry: Mirror publisher apologises in phone hacking trial|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230510103107/https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65541046|first1=Tom|last1=Symonds|first2=James|last2=Gregory|work=BBC News|date=10 May 2023|archive-date=10 May 2023|access-date=10 May 2023|url-status=live}}</ref> In June 2023, Harry testified in the court case accusing former ''Daily Mirror'' editor [[Piers Morgan]] of horrific personal attacks and claimed that his phone had been hacked dating back to when he was still at Eton.<ref>{{cite news |date=6 June 2023|title=Prince Harry accuses Piers Morgan of 'horrific personal attacks'|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/live/uk-65818773|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230606075022/https://www.bbc.com/news/live/uk-65818773|access-date=6 June 2023|archive-date=6 June 2023|work=BBC News}}</ref> His appearance marked the first time a member of the royal family had been [[cross-examined]] in court since [[Albert Edward, Prince of Wales]], appeared as a witness in court [[Royal baccarat scandal|in 1891]].<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/prince-harry-testify-court-uk-tabloid-hacking-trial-mirror-rcna87621|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240409230246/https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/prince-harry-testify-court-uk-tabloid-hacking-trial-mirror-rcna87621|title=Prince Harry becomes the first British royal to testify in court in 130 years|work=NBC News|first=Alexander|last=Smith|date=5 June 2023|archive-date=9 April 2024|access-date=6 June 2023|url-status=live}}</ref> In December 2023, the High Court ruled in favour of Harry for 15 of the 33 sample stories used in his claims of phone hacking against MGN and awarded him £140,600 of the £440,000 he sought in damages.<ref>{{cite news|last=Ward|first=Victoria|title=Prince Harry was victim of phone hacking by Mirror newspapers, judge rules|url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2023/12/15/extensive-hacking-mirror-newspapers-prince-harry/|work=The Telegraph|access-date=15 December 2023 |archive-url=https://archive.today/20231215115026/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2023/12/15/extensive-hacking-mirror-newspapers-prince-harry/|archive-date=15 December 2023 |date=15 December 2023 |url-status=live}}</ref><ref name="Mirror-ruling">{{cite news|last=Coughlan|first=Sean|title=Harry wins 15 claims in phone-hacking case against Mirror publisher |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-67332563|work=BBC News|access-date=15 December 2023|archive-url=https://archive.today/20231215155455/https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-67332563|archive-date=15 December 2023|date=15 December 2023 |url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last=Siddique|first=Haroon|title=Prince Harry v Mirror Group: key findings of the phone-hacking case |url=https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/dec/15/prince-harry-v-mirror-group-key-findings-of-phone-hacking-case|work=The Guardian|access-date=15 December 2023|archive-url=https://archive.today/20231215172157/https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/dec/15/prince-harry-v-mirror-group-key-findings-of-phone-hacking-case|archive-date=15 December 2023|date=15 December 2023|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/prince-harry-his-many-lawsuits-against-press-2023-12-15/|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240325071712/https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/prince-harry-his-many-lawsuits-against-press-2023-12-15/|title=Prince Harry and his many lawsuits against the press|work=Reuters|date=14 December 2023|archive-date=25 March 2024|access-date=15 December 2023|url-status=live}}</ref> Mr Justice Fancourt concluded [[Piers Morgan]] and other editors knew about the phone hacking at their publications and were involved in it.<ref>{{cite news|last=Topping|first=Alexandra|title=Piers Morgan denies knowing of phone hacking after judge rules he did|url=https://www.theguardian.com/media/2023/dec/15/piers-morgan-denies-knowing-phone-hacking-judge-rules-did-prince-harry|work=The Guardian|access-date=15 December 2023|archive-url=https://archive.today/20231215153354/https://www.theguardian.com/media/2023/dec/15/piers-morgan-denies-knowing-phone-hacking-judge-rules-did-prince-harry|archive-date=15 December 2023 |date=15 December 2023|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Tobin|first1=Sam|last2=Holden|first2=Michael |title=Piers Morgan knew about phone-hacking at Daily Mirror, London judge finds |url=https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/piers-morgan-knew-about-phone-hacking-daily-mirror-london-judge-finds-2023-12-15|access-date=15 December 2023|archive-url=https://archive.today/20231215131723/https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/piers-morgan-knew-about-phone-hacking-daily-mirror-london-judge-finds-2023-12-15/|archive-date=15 December 2023|date=15 December 2023|url-status=live|work=Reuters}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last=Pilgrim|first=Pilgrim|title=Judge accepts evidence that Piers Morgan knew about phone hacking at The Mirror|url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/piers-morgan-omid-scobie-justice-kylie-minogue-mirror-group-newspapers-b2464820.html|work=The Independent|access-date=15 December 2023|archive-url=https://archive.today/20231215153912/https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/piers-morgan-omid-scobie-justice-kylie-minogue-mirror-group-newspapers-b2464820.html|archive-date=15 December 2023|date=15 December 2023|url-status=live}}</ref> Harry through his lawyer [[David Sherborne]] called the ruling "vindicating and affirming" and urged the authorities to further investigate and prosecute the company.<ref name="Mirror-ruling"/> An additional 115 articles from Harry's claim might have been the focus of two further trials, but in February 2024 he settled his claim with MGN. The publisher agreed to cover Harry's legal costs and pay damages reported to be in the region of £300,000.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-68249009|title=Prince Harry settles phone hacking claim with Mirror group|work=BBC News|first=James|last=Gregory|date=9 February 2024|access-date=9 February 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240209154218/https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-68249009|archive-date=9 February 2024|url-status=live}}</ref>

====Other cases====
In October 2013, [[Jo Brand]] appeared on ''[[Have I Got News for You]]'' and while talking about [[Prince George of Wales|Prince George]]'s christening she said: "George's godparents include [[Hugh van Cutsem]] ... I presume that's a nickname as in Hugh van cuts 'em and Harry then snorts 'em."<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.upi.com/Entertainment_News/TV/2013/11/01/BBC-apologizes-for-error-made-in-Prince-Harry-cocaine-joke/43021383325851/|title=BBC apologizes for error made in Prince Harry cocaine joke|work=UPI|date=1 November 2013|access-date=26 January 2023}}</ref> Representatives of Kensington Palace contacted the BBC after the programme aired, pointing out the error and the implications of the joke.<ref name="BBC-christening">{{cite news|url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/10418969/BBC-apologises-for-factual-inaccuracy-of-Prince-Harry-drug-joke.html|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131103165545/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/10418969/BBC-apologises-for-factual-inaccuracy-of-Prince-Harry-drug-joke.html|title=BBC apologises for 'factual inaccuracy' of Prince Harry drug joke|work=The Telegraph|first=Hannah|last=Furness|date=1 November 2013|archive-date=3 November 2013|access-date=26 January 2023|url-access=subscription|url-status=live}}</ref> The BBC wrote to Kensington Palace apologising for the "factual inaccuracy" as George's godfather was William van Cutsem, but it did not apologise for the comment itself as it was part of the show's "irreverent humor".<ref name="BBC-christening"/>

In February 2014, a judge sentenced the convicted criminal Ashraf Islam to three years in prison, as he had plotted to murder Harry and had given it "considerable thought" due to his belief that Harry had "a moral guilt" since he was in the army.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://news.sky.com/story/prince-harry-death-plot-ashraf-islam-jailed-10417878|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220116220532/https://news.sky.com/story/prince-harry-death-plot-ashraf-islam-jailed-10417878|title=Prince Harry Death Plot: Ashraf Islam Jailed|work=Sky News|date=10 February 2014|archive-date=16 January 2022|access-date=16 January 2022|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/prince-harry/10628964/Prince-Harry-death-plot-criminal-jailed-for-three-years.html|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230921110819/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/prince-harry/10628964/Prince-Harry-death-plot-criminal-jailed-for-three-years.html|title=Prince Harry death plot criminal jailed for three years|work=The Telegraph|date=10 February 2014|archive-date=21 September 2023|access-date=16 January 2022|url-access=subscription|url-status=live}}</ref> In June 2019, two members of the neo-Nazi group [[Sonnenkrieg Division]] were jailed for eighteen months and four years, respectively, for sharing propaganda posters among which was one that labelled Harry as a "race traitor" with a gun pointed at his head.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-48672929|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190618122627/https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-48672929|title=Teenage neo-Nazis jailed over terror offences|work=BBC News|date=18 June 2019|archive-date=18 June 2019|access-date=29 September 2021|url-status=live}}</ref>

In May 2019, [[Splash News]] issued a formal apology to the Sussexes for sending photographers to their [[Cotswolds]] residence, which put their privacy at risk. The agency also agreed to pay damages and legal costs associated with the case.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-48296202|title=Prince Harry accepts damages over Splash News Agency photos|work=BBC News|date=16 May 2019|access-date=16 May 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190522060329/https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-48296202|archive-date=22 May 2019|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/16/europe/prince-harry-meghan-helicopter-pictures-gbr-intl-scli/index.html|title=Prince Harry accepts 'substantial' damages after helicopter photos forced royal couple from their home|work=CNN|first1=Rob|last1=Picheta|first2=Max|last2=Foster|date=16 May 2019|access-date=16 May 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200127061122/https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/16/europe/prince-harry-meghan-helicopter-pictures-gbr-intl-scli/index.html|archive-date=27 January 2020|url-status=live}}</ref> In December 2019, [[PA Media]] retracted the publishing of a [[Christmas card]] photograph of Harry, Meghan, and their son Archie. The agency said that the photo was retracted because they had been advised that the photograph was "not representative of the Christmas card sent by the Duke and Duchess of Sussex".<ref>{{cite news|last=Saad|first=Nardine|date=24 December 2019|title=Prince Harry and Meghan let Archie take over family Christmas card |url=https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/story/2019-12-24/prince-harry-meghan-archie-christmas-card-canada|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231222115155/https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/story/2019-12-24/prince-harry-meghan-archie-christmas-card-canada|archive-date=22 December 2023|access-date=11 March 2024|work=Los Angeles Times}}</ref> In January 2020, lawyers issued a legal warning to the press after paparazzi photographs were published in the media.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/jan/21/harry-and-meghan-legal-warning-latest-twist-in-royal-paparazzi-feud|title=Harry and Meghan legal warning latest twist in royal paparazzi feud|work=The Guardian|first=Ben|last=Quinn|date=21 January 2020|access-date=21 January 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200121170458/https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/jan/21/harry-and-meghan-legal-warning-latest-twist-in-royal-paparazzi-feud|archive-date=21 January 2020|url-status=live}}</ref> In March 2020, the couple took Splash UK to court after the Duchess and their son were photographed without permission during a "private family outing" while staying in Canada. The case was settled later that year with Splash UK agreeing to no longer take unauthorised photos of the family.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-55363316|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240214135046/https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-55363316|title=Meghan settles case over Archie photos with Splash UK agency|work=BBC News|date=18 December 2020|archive-date=14 February 2024|access-date=31 December 2020|url-status=live}}</ref> In April 2020, the Duke and Duchess announced that they would no longer cooperate with the ''Daily Mail'', the ''Sun'', the ''Mirror'' and the ''Express''.<ref>{{cite news |title=Meghan and Harry tell four British tabloids they can expect 'zero engagement'|url=https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/20/media/meghan-harry-tabloids-uk/index.html|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200420130842/https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/20/media/meghan-harry-tabloids-uk/index.html|work=CNN|first=Hada|last=Gold|date=20 April 2020|archive-date=20 April 2020|access-date=31 December 2020|url-status=live}}</ref> They won an apology in October that year from American news agency X17 for taking photographs of their son at their home using drones.<ref>{{cite news|date=8 October 2020|archive-date=9 October 2020|title=Harry and Meghan: News agency apology over 'drone photos' of son|work=BBC News|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-54472714|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201009040102/https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-54472714|access-date=22 October 2020|url-status=live}}</ref>

In June 2020, it was reported that Harry's lawyers had issued a 'letter before action', threatening to sue the ''Sun'' and [[Dan Wootton]], based on the allegations that they had paid money to associates of palace officials to secure their stories.<ref name="Byline-NewsUK">{{cite news|url=https://bylineinvestigates.com/2020/06/05/royal-exclusive-prince-harrys-legal-move-over-cash-for-briefings-claims-at-the-sun-the-story-murdoch-tried-to-bury/|title=ROYAL EXCLUSIVE: Prince Harry's legal move over 'cash-for-briefings' claims at The Sun – The story Murdoch tried to bury|work=Byline Investigates|first=Dan|last=Evans|date=5 June 2020|access-date=4 January 2023}}</ref> It was alleged that the ''Sun'' had made two payments amounting to £4,000 to the partner of a royal official in relation to stories published in June and July 2019 which detailed the nannying and god-parenting arrangements for Harry and Meghan's son Archie.<ref name="Byline-NewsUK"/> News Group Newspapers, publisher of the ''Sun'', emphasised that they had done nothing "unlawful" in sourcing the stories and no illegal payments were made.<ref name="Byline-NewsUK"/> Wootton's lawyers denied that any payments were made unlawfully to a public official or a proxy and described the claims as "a smear campaign by unknown bad actors."<ref name="Byline-NewsUK"/> Wootton has been credited with breaking the story about [[Megxit]] and Harry and Meghan's initial plans for moving to Canada in the ''Sun'' on 8 January 2020, which prompted the couple to issue an announcement within hours, confirming their plans for stepping back from their royal duties.<ref name="Press-Sussex">{{cite news|url=https://pressgazette.co.uk/publishers/nationals/harry-and-meghan-are-professional-victims-says-sun-journalist-who-broke-royal-split-story/|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230104230025/https://pressgazette.co.uk/publishers/nationals/harry-and-meghan-are-professional-victims-says-sun-journalist-who-broke-royal-split-story/|title=Harry and Meghan are 'professional victims' says Sun journalist who broke royal split story|work=Press Gazette|first=Freddy|last=Mayhew|date=30 September 2022|archive-date=4 January 2023|access-date=4 January 2023|url-status=live}}</ref> Sources close to the couple later spoke to ''[[The New York Times]]'', stating that they "felt forced to disclose their plans prematurely" as they learned about the ''Sun''{{'}}s intentions to publish the story.<ref name="Press-Sussex"/> Wootton disputed the claim as "They released the statement after we had published the story and had so much notice."<ref name="Press-Sussex"/>

A September 2020 article by ''[[The Times]]'' claiming an Invictus Games fundraiser had been cancelled due to its affiliation with a competitor of Netflix, Harry's business partner, became the subject of a legal complaint issued by the Duke.<ref>{{cite news|last=Nikkah|first=Roya|title=Harry and Meghan's Netflix deal scuppers Invictus bash|url=https://www.thetimes.com/article/harry-and-meghans-netflix-deal-scuppers-invictus-bash-38kt5k6sc|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230921110810/https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/harry-and-meghans-netflix-deal-scuppers-invictus-bash-38kt5k6sc|access-date=12 December 2020|work=[[The Times]]|date=6 September 2020|archive-date=21 September 2023|url-access=subscription|url-status=live}}</ref> In January 2022, the couple mutually filed a legal complaint against ''The Times'' for an article reporting on Archewell raising less than $50,000 in 2020.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.thetimes.com/uk/royal-family/article/archewells-50-000-slow-start-and-the-truth-about-celebrity-fundraising-2rp2pp003|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230117045414/https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/archewells-50-000-slow-start-and-the-truth-about-celebrity-fundraising-2rp2pp003|title=Archewell's $50,000 slow start, and the truth about celebrity fundraising|work=[[The Times]]|first=Damian|last=Whitworth|date=6 January 2022|archive-date=17 January 2023|access-date=10 January 2022|url-access=subscription|url-status=live}}</ref>

Despite the palace congratulating the Duke and Duchess on the birth of their daughter Lilibet in June 2021, a few days later the BBC reported that Harry and Meghan had not sought the permission of the Queen before naming their daughter with her personal family nickname.<ref>{{cite news|title=Harry and Meghan reject claim Queen not consulted on Lilibet name|url=https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jun/09/harry-and-meghan-push-back-at-claim-queen-not-consulted-on-lilibet-name|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240117220014/https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jun/09/harry-and-meghan-push-back-at-claim-queen-not-consulted-on-lilibet-name|work=The Guardian|date=9 June 2021|archive-date=17 January 2024|access-date=11 June 2021|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=Meghan Markle & Prince Harry Bristle At "False & Defamatory" BBC Report On Daughter Lilibet's Name|url=https://deadline.com/2021/06/meghan-markle-prince-harry-bbc-lilibet-1234772079/|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230921110809/https://deadline.com/2021/06/meghan-markle-prince-harry-bbc-lilibet-1234772079/|website=Deadline|date=9 June 2021|archive-date=21 September 2023|access-date=11 June 2021|url-status=live}}</ref> Lawyers for the couple subsequently accused the BBC of defamation and sent letters out to various media organisations saying the report was false and defamatory, and the allegations should not be repeated as Harry had spoken to the Queen before announcing their daughter's name.<ref>{{cite news |title=What's in a name? An angry spat between Harry, Meghan and the BBC|url=https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/whats-name-an-angry-spat-between-harry-meghan-bbc-2021-06-09/|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230921110811/https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/whats-name-an-angry-spat-between-harry-meghan-bbc-2021-06-09/|work=Reuters|date=10 June 2021|archive-date=21 September 2023|access-date=11 June 2021|url-status=live}}</ref><ref name="telegraph2121">{{cite news |last=Tominey |first=Camilla |title=Palace frustration over Lilibet name choice is part of wider annoyance over Sussexes' departure|url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2021/06/09/palace-frustration-name-choice-part-wider-annoyance-sussexes/|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230921110808/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2021/06/09/palace-frustration-name-choice-part-wider-annoyance-sussexes/|work=The Telegraph|date=9 June 2021|archive-date=21 September 2023|access-date=11 June 2021|url-status=live|url-access=subscription}}</ref>

In January 2024, two neo-Nazis, Christopher Gibbons and Tyrone Patten-Walsh, were given prison sentences between 8 and 11 years for terrorism, which included calling for the deaths of Harry and his son Archie on their podcast.<ref>{{cite news|title=Neo-Nazi podcasters sent to prison on terror charges for targeting Prince Harry and his young son|url=https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/neo-nazi-podcasters-sent-prison-terror-charges-targeting-prince-harry-rcna132425|access-date=11 January 2024|work=NBC News|date=5 January 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240229073434/https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/neo-nazi-podcasters-sent-prison-terror-charges-targeting-prince-harry-rcna132425 |archive-date=29 February 2024}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last=Moody|first=Jasmine|title=Two white supremacists jailed for terrorism offences after targeting Harry and Meghan's son in neo-Nazi podcast |url=https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/white-supremacists-jailed-terrorism-prince-harry-meghan-markle-neo-nazi-podcast/|work=LBC|date=4 January 2024|access-date=11 January 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240117191015/https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/white-supremacists-jailed-terrorism-prince-harry-meghan-markle-neo-nazi-podcast/|archive-date=17 January 2024}}</ref>

===Interviews===
Harry and his wife [[Oprah with Meghan and Harry|were interviewed]] by [[Oprah Winfrey]] in a television special for [[CBS]], broadcast on 7 March 2021.<ref name=BBC1Mar>{{cite news|url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-56234900|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231216223024/https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-56234900|title=Meghan and Harry Oprah interview: Diana discussed in teaser clips|date=1 March 2021|work=BBC News|archive-date=16 December 2023|access-date=3 March 2021|url-status=live}}</ref> Meghan spoke about marriage, motherhood, and the pressures of public life. Harry joined her later, and the pair talked about the initial difficulties associated with their move to the United States in 2020 and their plans for the future.<ref name="JonesLinton">{{cite news|last1=Jones|first1=Zoe Christen |last2=Linton |first2=Caroline|title=Live Updates: The Harry and Meghan interview with Oprah|url=https://www.cbsnews.com/live-updates/harry-meghan-oprah-interview/|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210308014244/https://www.cbsnews.com/live-updates/harry-meghan-oprah-interview/|work=CBS News|access-date=8 March 2021|archive-date=8 March 2021|date=7 March 2021|url-status=live}}</ref> During the interview, Harry criticised his father's parenting style, mentioned his father did not answer his calls and had cut him off financially, and he had no relationship with his brother.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/royal-family/prince-charles-harry-pub-criticism-b1855788.html|first=Olivia|last=Petter|title=Prince Charles appears cheerful in pub amid Harry's criticism of royal family|date=28 May 2021|archive-date=21 September 2023|work=The Independent|access-date=27 November 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230921110809/https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/royal-family/prince-charles-harry-pub-criticism-b1855788.html|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/prince-harry-charles-diana-oprah-b1850989.html|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230921110807/https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/prince-harry-charles-diana-oprah-b1850989.html|first=Clara|last=Hill|title=Prince Harry criticises Charles' parenting and complains royals refused to talk about Diana's death|archive-date=21 September 2023|date=21 May 2021|work=The Independent|access-date=27 November 2021|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/royal-family/what-did-harry-and-meghan-get-up-to-in-2021-b1983849.html|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230921110808/https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/royal-family/what-did-harry-and-meghan-get-up-to-in-2021-b1983849.html|title=What did Harry and Meghan get up to in 2021?|work=The Independent|first=Saman|last=Jave|date=29 December 2021|archive-date=21 September 2023|access-date=3 January 2022|url-status=live}}</ref> There was a wide and polarised reaction to the interview.<ref>{{cite news|title=Global reaction to Harry and Meghan interview pours in|url=https://chicago.suntimes.com/entertainment-and-culture/2021/3/8/22320311/harry-meghan-interview-bidens-world-leaders-reactions-oprah-winfrey|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221223223115/https://chicago.suntimes.com/entertainment-and-culture/2021/3/8/22320311/harry-meghan-interview-bidens-world-leaders-reactions-oprah-winfrey|work=Chicago Sun-Times|access-date=12 March 2021|archive-date=23 December 2022|date=8 March 2021|url-status=live}}</ref>

In April 2022, Harry sat down for an interview with ''[[Today (American TV program)|Today]]''{{'}}s [[Hoda Kotb]] during the [[2020 Invictus Games|Invictus Games]], during which he claimed that he had visited his grandmother the Queen earlier to make sure that she was "protected and got the right people around her."<ref name="Sky-TodayS">{{cite news|url=https://news.sky.com/story/prince-harry-opens-up-about-visiting-queen-and-life-in-the-us-during-interview-with-hoda-kotb-at-invictus-games-12594070|title=Prince Harry opens up about visiting Queen and life in the US during interview with Hoda Kotb at Invictus Games|work=Sky News|date=20 April 2022|access-date=6 January 2023}}</ref> In January 2023 and ahead of the release of his memoir ''Spare'', Harry sat down for a series of interviews, including an interview by [[Anderson Cooper]] on ''[[60 Minutes]]'', another one by [[Tom Bradby]] titled ''[[Harry: The Interview]]'' on [[ITV1]], and a third interview by [[Michael Strahan]] on ''[[Good Morning America]]'', titled ''Prince Harry: In His Own Words''.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://etcanada.com/news/952680/prince-harry-is-scheduled-for-another-sit-down-interview-to-promote-his-tell-all-memoir-spare/|title=Prince Harry Is Scheduled For Another Sit-Down Interview To Promote His Tell-All Memoir 'Spare'|work=ET Canada|first=Melissa|last=Romualdi|date=19 December 2022|access-date=25 December 2022|archive-date=11 January 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230111165542/https://etcanada.com/news/952680/prince-harry-is-scheduled-for-another-sit-down-interview-to-promote-his-tell-all-memoir-spare/}}</ref> In the interview with Bradby, Harry said that he "would like to get my father back, I would like to have my brother back".<ref name=GuardJan02/> Referring to the press as "the devil", he also alleged that "certain members" of his family were "in the bed" with them to "rehabilitate their image".<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/royal-family/prince-harry-tabloids-uk-media-b2258549.html|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230115205745/https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/royal-family/prince-harry-tabloids-uk-media-b2258549.html|title=What Prince Harry has said about the British press|work=The Independent|first=Olivia|last=Petter|date=9 January 2023|access-date=9 January 2023|archive-date=15 January 2023|url-status=live}}</ref>

In a [[live-streamed]] interview in March 2023, physician [[Gabor Maté]] suggested publicly that Harry could be suffering from [[PTSD]], [[ADD]], anxiety, and depression based on his conversation with him and having read his autobiography ''Spare''.<ref>{{cite news|last=Adam|first=Karla|title=Prince Harry stays silent on coronation plans but speaks again of his past|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/03/05/prince-harry-gabor-mate-interview-coronation/|access-date=10 March 2023|newspaper=The Washington Post|date=5 March 2023|url-access=subscription}}</ref><ref>{{cite magazine|url=https://www.elle.com/uk/life-and-culture/culture/a43195273/prince-harry-ptsd-diagnosis-how-meghan-markle-saved-him/|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230921110807/https://www.elle.com/uk/life-and-culture/culture/a43195273/prince-harry-ptsd-diagnosis-how-meghan-markle-saved-him/|title=Prince Harry Reportedly Reveals PTSD Diagnosis And How Meghan Markle 'Saved Him'|magazine=Elle|first=Aimée|last=Lutkin|date=5 March 2023|archive-date=21 September 2023|access-date=10 March 2023|url-status=live}}</ref>

===On Twitter and other platforms===
In October 2021, Twitter analytics service [[Bot Sentinel]] alleged that 83 accounts with a combined number of 187,631 followers were responsible for approximately 70% of the negative content posted about Harry and Meghan.<ref name="WP-Oct21">{{cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/10/27/meghan-markle-twitter-hate-campaign/|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211027092109/https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/10/27/meghan-markle-twitter-hate-campaign/|title=Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, was target of organized hate campaign on Twitter, report says|newspaper=The Washington Post|first=Amy|last=Cheng|date=27 October 2021|archive-date=27 October 2021|access-date=27 October 2021|url-status=live}}</ref> The report prompted an investigation by Twitter.<ref name="WP-Oct21"/> Twitter stated that it found no evidence of "widespread coordination" between the accounts, and said that it had taken action against users who violated Twitter's conduct policy.<ref name="WP-Oct21"/> Bot Sentinel released three more reports in the following months.<ref>{{cite magazine|url=https://www.thecut.com/2022/01/new-report-meghan-markle-was-focus-of-twitter-hate-campaign.html|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220119014742/https://www.thecut.com/2022/01/new-report-meghan-markle-was-focus-of-twitter-hate-campaign.html|title=There Really Is a Coordinated Online Attack on Meghan Markle|magazine=The Cut|first1=Mia|last1=Mercado|first2=Olivia|last2=Truffaut-Wong|date=18 January 2022|archive-date=19 January 2022|access-date=19 January 2022|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://botsentinel.com/reports/documents/duke-and-duchess-of-sussex/report-01-18-2022.pdf|title=Coordinated Hate Campaign Targeting Harry and Meghan, Duke and Duchess of Sussex|work=Bot Sentinel|date=18 January 2022|access-date=27 January 2022}}</ref> In January 2022, the BBC named Harry and Meghan among people whose photos and videos were used in fake instant profits advertisements and [[bitcoin]]-related investment schemes.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-60040937|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220120043825/https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-60040937|title=Harry and Meghan misused in fake investment endorsement|work=BBC News|first=Sean|last=Coughlan|date=19 January 2022|archive-date=20 January 2022|access-date=20 January 2022|url-status=live}}</ref>