Meghan Markle WINS Lawsuit Against Tabloid: That'll Teach You to Publish My Private Letters!

by at .

For years now, Meghan Markle and Prince Harry have been fighting an uphill battle to defend their right to privacy.

They often encountered so much resistance that it seemed as though many within the British court system and media sphere felt that they deserved no such right.

But now, Meghan has scored a major victory over a UK tabloid that's been antagonizing her for years.

Meghan Markle Speaks Out

As you may recall, the Duchess of Sussex suffered an appalling betrayal back in 2019, when her father, Thomas Markle, sold a letter from Meghan to the Daily Mail.

The tabloid then published excerpts of the five-page, handwritten missive, much to Meghan's horror.

She filed suit against the Mail's publisher, Associated Newspapers, and after a year of legal wrangling, on Thursday, a UK High Court judge granted the Duchess of Sussex a summary judgment in her case.

Prince Harry and His Wife

That means the judge decided that Meghan's case against the Mail is so open-and-shut that there's no need for a full trial.

No huge surprise there, as publishing a private letter without consent is only about one rung below publishing stolen nude photos in terms of appalling violations of privacy.

Or, as Meghan's lawyers put it:

Meghan Markle and Prince Harry: A Portrait

"She had a reasonable expectation that the contents of the Letter would remain private. The Mail Articles interfered with that reasonable expectation." 

Meghan issued a statement in response to the ruling, and while she's cleatly pleased with the court's decision, it seems she's well aware that this is just one battle of many she'll be forced to fight.

"After two long years of pursuing litigation, I am grateful to the courts for holding Associated Newspapers and The Mail on Sunday to account for their illegal and dehumanizing practices," the duchess said in a statement.

Meghan Markle and Prince Harry on a Bench

"These tactics (and those of their sister publications MailOnline and The Daily Mail) are not new; in fact, they've been going on for far too long without consequence," she continued.

"For these outlets, it's a game. For me and so many others, it's real life, real relationships, and very real sadness. The damage they have done and continue to do runs deep."

Lawyers for the Mail argued that Meghan "knew that her father had spoken to the media previously about their relationship and was continuing to do so" and "therefore knew that it was possible or even likely that he would disclose the contents of the letter to third parties or the media."

Meghan Speaks

They even cited Meghan's "immaculate" penmanship as evidence, stating:

"It is to be inferred also from the care [she] took over the presentation of the letter that she anticipated it being disclosed to and read by third parties."

In their desperate arttempt at character assassination, the Mail's lawyers even dredged up an interview with Meghan's friends published by People magazine published in 2019.

Meghan Markle In 2020

The interview, the attorneys argued, "depicted Mr. Markle as having acted unreasonably and unlovingly, having cold-shouldered his daughter, and being solely to blame for the estrangement between father and daughter.

"This was a one-sided and/or misleading and false narrative."

Not surprisingly, the same company that feels it should be able to destroy Meghan's personal life in order to rack up some more clicks threw a little a pity party for itself in response to the judgment:

Meghan In Red

"We are very surprised by today's summary judgment and disappointed at being denied the chance to have all the evidence heard and tested in open court at a full trial,"said an Associated Newspapers spokesperson.

"We are carefully considering the judgment's contents and will decide in due course whether to lodge an appeal." 

Meghan's awful father and sister have thus far remained silent, and we're hoping that continues ... like, forever.

These people are truly the worst.

Show Comments
Tags: