Editing Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex (section)

====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>