- Meghan Markle just won (gentle music)
a huge case against a British tabloid,
which misused her privacy
when they published a personal letter
she wrote to her father.
The outcome is a significant moment especially for Meghan,
who's been the victim of constant bullying
by the British tabloids.
So, what did the court actually rule
and will it stop the media
from using leaked documents in the future?
Back in 2019, Meghan Markle sued a UK paper
called "The Mail on Sunday,"
after it published this article containing a letter
that she'd written to her estranged father.
And now High Court has ruled that the paper was guilty
of misuse of private information and copyright infringement
against the Duchess of Sussex.
If you haven't read the letter that the paper published,
it is deeply personal.
And despite the defense case labeling it a publicity stunt,
Meghan has always maintained
it was never meant to be read publicly.
In a public statement,
Meghan declared the court win was for everyone,
but for her it's a particularly significant moment.
The Duchess has had to deal with a lot of shit
from the British media
ever since she entered the Royal spotlight.
It was one of the main reasons her and Prince Harry
announced last year, that they would be taking a step back
from their Royal duties.
Prince Harry has even said that he doesn't want to play
into the games of the media, which he believes
led to his late mother, Princess Diana's death.
This certainly isn't the first time a Royal or celebrity
has taken legal action against the press.
Duchess of Cambridge, Kate Middleton,
sued and won a court case
after a French tabloid published topless photos of her.
But for Megan to win this case
on the grounds of misuse of private information,
is kind of a rare victory regarding celebrity privacy.
That's because it's a relatively new law in the UK.
We don't even have it here in Australia.
And it differs from the more commonly cited laws
that revolve around a breach of confidence.
This misuse of private information law
more concerns information that is personal
and private in its very nature.
Like a hospital record or in this case, a letter,
which shouldn't be misused without consent.
- There's an assumption, particularly in the media,
that people who play with the press.
So, you know, people who rely on the media
and cultivate relationships with the media
for their own commercial purposes or publicity purposes
like the Royal Family, have a lower expectation of privacy
than an ordinary private citizen.
Even people as public and prominent
as members of the Royal Family still have a private life
which they're entitled to expect to be able to protect.
- People are now applauding the Duchess
for standing up to the media bullies
who are being called out for what is being referred to
as their dehumanizing practices.
Markle wrote in a statement after the ruling that,
"For these outlets, it's a game."
But that for her and so many others, it's real life.
But despite the court's ruling, it's highly unlikely
that the media will stop hounding celebrities
the way they do.
- It definitely won't stop the media doing it
because whatever this court case cost the publisher
is a small fraction of the money they made
unless it's actually criminalized
and say that individuals are facing jail time
or something serious like that,
they're not gonna be slowed down.
(engine roaring)
What's the point of that?
- Legal experts are divided by the win.
Some argue that the judgment gives an unfair advantage
to high profile people
who have the money to be able to follow through
with these kinds of High Court cases.
Others worry it could
potentially disrupt the journalistic integrity of publishing
what's in the public's best interests.
But when the motive of serving the public crosses the line
to exploit and sale someone's privacy,
are we really serving the public at all?
The High Court ruling is a big win for Meghan
and for all the celebrities
who could find themselves subject
to media bullying in the future.
The case could also be assigned power
through potential development
in getting a similar law operating here, in Australia.
(upbeat music)