Why are British outlets obsessed with Duchess Meghan’s ‘£1 in damages’, hm?

Harry and Meghan

You know how Prince Andrew is in the news this week because Virginia Giuffre is suing him for raping her when she was 17 years old? And you know how the Duchess of Cambridge is also blanketing the media with her Keen Birthday Button Embiggening Extravaganza? Well, funny story, the British media is extremely desperate to change the subject from their problematic faves. It genuinely looks like Kate’s birthday nonsense blew up in her face (Tatler-style) and Andrew… well, it’s never been a good look. Which is why seemingly every British outlet it trying to make a weeks-old story about Meghan into a thing. That story? The Mail/ANI is “only” paying Meghan £1 in “damages” from her successful lawsuit. The problem with this reporting is that every outlet buries the details about how the Mail settled with Meghan for an undisclosed sum for copyright infringement AND the Mail has to pay the bulk of her legal fees.

Meghan Markle received the princely sum of £1 ($1.35) in damages from the publishers of the Daily Mail and the Mail Online in a settlement for her privacy action against them, after they published a handwritten letter she sent to her estranged father.

The retired star libel lawyer David Hooper, however, told The Daily Beast that it would be a mistake to read the paltry amount of the award against Meghan as indicative of any weakness in her case, which she won definitively. He said the much more important fact was that Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL) had agreed to cover a substantial portion of Meghan’s legal costs, meaning she had not only proved her point of principle—something Meghan has always said was far more important to her than the money—but also “inflicted significant financial damage” on the publishers.

He said it was likely that if Meghan had wanted to secure a larger amount of money, she would have been involved in further legal wrangling, with ANL possibly demanding she prove what damage she had suffered. By accepting a token amount, the matter was now closed without further negotiations.

The publisher has also agreed to pay a confidential sum in damages for copyright infringement. Her spokesperson described this payment as substantial and said it will be donated to charity.

The settlement marks the formal end of Meghan’s three-year battle against ANL. Meghan won a summary judgment against the publishers, which meant she never had to face a full trial. ANL failed to get this unilateral decision of the judge overturned on appeal.

Hooper told The Daily Beast: “Accepting the £1 will likely have avoided a tremendous argument about the extent of the damage she suffered. She just wanted to establish a principle and get her legal costs paid, although she may well still be a half a million pounds out of pocket as a result of this process. They would say it was about the principle of the thing, but if they hoped that because of this the Mail will not write about them any more, they are in cloud cuckoo land. They’ve inflicted a financial loss on the Mail, but it is a company with deep pockets. Obviously the Mail would have preferred to win, but Meghan did nothing for her reputation by her memory lapse over some of the evidence.”

[From The Daily Beast]

I wonder where Tom Sykes (the Daily Beast’s Royalist columnist) finds some of these people. This was not a loss for Meghan at any level. She won her case twice – once with Judge Warby’s summary judgment, and again when the appeals court upheld her victory. She received the symbolic £1 in privacy damages because that’s what she asked for, and because she and her lawyers always knew that the copyright infringement was the easiest part of the case to prove. Thus, she knew she would get more money from the copyright part of the case. The Mail settled with Meghan on December 14th, meaning they did more than just cut her a £1 check. My guess is that she settled for something with seven figures. And, again, on top of all that, the Mail has to pay for something like 90% of Meghan’s legal bills. In addition to all of that #winning, Meghan directly went up against the Kensington Palace machinery which was actively working WITH the Mail. This was not a Pyrrhic victory.

Royals attends Christmas Day Church service

The Wimbledon Championships 2019

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

71 Responses to “Why are British outlets obsessed with Duchess Meghan’s ‘£1 in damages’, hm?”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

    • Digital Unicorn says:

      Not only that – they have been denied the opportunity to crow about how she’s a gold digger.

      • CROOKSNNANNIES says:

        Exactly- damned if you do, damned if you don’t. Meghan doesn’t *publicly* garner more than $1.3 million (what, are they pretending the undisclosed sum is $1?) so clearly her case isn’t valid. But then if she gets more and it’s known, then she’d be a grasping, covetous, greedy American. I call BS.

  1. Wiglet Watcher says:

    Did the Kate birthday keenness blow up on her face? I thought everyone thinks it’s a success by just putting it out there and no BM outlet calls her out directly for being lazy.

    Geez they can’t let go of Meghan. When she married Harry we all knew she would be attacked like Fergie, but wow. Whole new level.

  2. Em says:

    She offered to accept one pound for the privacy and an accounts of the profits they made for copyright so they might have shelled out millions. I just pissed of that the amount wasn’t disclosed, because this will discourage people from suing these papers as well as it being embarrassing because the mail knows people don’t read past headlines. Revealing what they paid would have humiliated the mail. I don’t know why it wasn’t revealed.

    • Jan says:

      These tabloids have lost lawsuits for years, they have no shame, it’s all about the money.
      So saying announcing the settlement would maka a difference to these tabloids, is a stretch.

    • Louise177 says:

      Most lawsuits have non disclosures especially when there’s a large payout or embarrassing details. This isn’t unusual. I am disappointed that the media not just the British are reporting it as a loss to Meghan. The 1 pound is all everyone is reporting not the legal fees and copy right payment.

    • Saucy&Sassy says:

      Em, I hope she deposits the money in Archewell. I believe they have to file a report annually, correct? Hmmmmmm….we just might get an idea if she does that.

  3. Izzy says:

    Because they know their faithful loser readers won’t look beyond the headlines so they’ll automatically assume the only thing that the Fail has to pay is one pound.

    • Snuffles says:

      And that is exactly what is happening. I’ve seen SO many crowing about it on Twitter.

      But Meghan’s team confirmed she received a SUBSTANTIAL sum for the copyright part. They focused on that because the profit from it publication was probably easily calculable. With the privacy damages, they would have gone back and forth endlessly on it.

  4. JT says:

    The DM has to pay nearly $2 million in legal fees, plus an undisclosed “substantial amount” for the copyright portion of the case, on top of losing twice to Meghan. In what way was this a loss for anyone but the Daily Fail? Oh and they were burned by the humiliating statement that Meghan wrote, along with the fact that her win was trending for 5 days after they tried to bury their “apology.”

  5. Nieve says:

    The guardian wasn’t too bad about it- they quote ‘she only got £1mil’ saying she probably deserved more. Whish if you think about how much the mail made selling newspapers at the time, Meghan deserved loads more.

    • Lila says:

      The Guardian was bad because that’s not what happened. ANL will have to pay for her lawyers (a seven figure bill) and a substantial undisclosed amount.

      • Nic919 says:

        I thought the Guardian was the more left wing paper? Why are they reporting this story like the tabloids?

    • ABritGuest says:

      No the Guardian led the ‘she will only get £1 from court case’ clickbait headline reporting. The Guardian & BBC doing their bit for the establishment & to try get the heat off the backlash for Andrew’s case.

      The British media desperately wanted Meghan to face a trial primarily so they’d have her back on British soil & they’d have the drama of her potentially facing her father in court, testimony from her, Harry & maybe the anonymous friends from People so they are sore they’ve been deprived of that. They were also promising their readers her humiliation & recently the Torygraph was even lying about possible perjury charges. Of course that hasn’t transpired so they have to reassure themselves & their troll readers & present compensation she got as if she only got £1 to make it seem like she actually lost & is totally out of pocket. The point in the daily beast about privacy is totally wrong & was determined at summary judgment & court of appeal stage.

      Meghan’s lawyers even proposed the £1 award for misuse of private info in March I believe because they didn’t want further time spent in court assessing what damage she had incurred & instead wanted to focus on an account of profits for the copyright infringement. So the nominal damages isn’t even new information but that it’s been the main headline just shows how eager they are to distract.

      It would be so funny if after the media desperately wanted a trial for Meghan’s case, its ANDREW who faces one instead

      • Amy Bee says:

        @ABritGuest: Exactly.

      • PreviouslyLithe says:

        I’m so disappointed in The Guardian’s reporting on this case. So much so that I’ve stopped responding to their fundraising appeals. I will never donate another dollar to them.

    • SomeChick says:

      the Guardian is generally very even handed. they are not a royalist paper. and they have been reporting on the Andrew case, the Maxwell case, etc. they are not trying to cover for Andrew.

      • Bex says:

        And yet they managed to cover this particular story the exact same way as the tabloids, even down to the timing. That didn’t happen organically.

  6. Amy T says:

    Didn’t Taylor Swift get $1 when she sued and won her suit against the POS who touched her backside in a photo?

    It’s not the money that matters in these situation, Sykes & Co. And that we have to explain it is all the evidence we need to know that you won’t understand that.

    • LaraW” says:

      I think Taylor did sue that person for $1.

      I find the UK and US points of view on this to be really interesting. In the US, it’s major flex to sue someone (especially a huge media conglomerate!) for $1 and win. But apparently not so in the UK (media, I can’t always tell exactly how representative the BM is of UK popular opinion on different issues).

      Imagine suing Fox News for $1 and winning. You couldn’t make a clearer statement that you’re litigating for the principle of the matter, not damages— and that you can’t be bought off by a huge settlement.

  7. Haylie says:

    Tom Sykes has to post his garbage because he got caught with loose lips talking about Prince William’s affair.

    Also, Meghan’s rep didn’t take a hit because of Jason Knauf’s texts. They exposed Kensington Palace’s involvement in Finding Freedom and their collusion with ANL, plus they made Charles look like a bully re: Thomas Markle.

    Meghan won. KP/CH/BP lost.

    • Blujfly says:

      I think the same thing about Sykes. Wildly tap dancing since the Prince William affair bit. And I wouldn’t be surprised if the Daily Beast, as an American publication, made him write about that because their editor in chief of the entire publication is who Prince William’s attorneys directed the threat of legal action to, which that guy immediately revealed on Twitter.

  8. Jan says:

    How stupid can that lawyer be saying Meghan will out a half million for lawyers fees, when she can use some of the MOS payout, to pay her 10% of the bill.
    After the last charity she donated to in England was too embarrass to be associated with her but not embarrassed enough to refuse the money, I would not donate to any bullying charities in England, because none spoke out on her behalf.
    It’s funny all the tabloids in England ran with that £1 story, while the Judge in NY was not taking any of the BS Andy’s lawyers are trying to pull, imagine their shocked when the judge said Florida payout does not cover NY.

    • Erin says:

      Not to be that person, but there were a few the came out in support of Megan after patronages were taken away from them.

      Smart Works, WellChild and Mayhew were some of the ones listed in a Harper Bazaar article.

      • MsIam says:

        Those charities were not taken away from Meghan, she is still working with them. The ones taken away were the National Theatre and the ones having to do with the Commonwealth. I think there was one organization that spoke out when Piers went off on his rant/walk out but yeah, not a lot of public support of Meghan by any anti bullying charities that I saw.

      • 809Matriarch says:

        But no anti-bullying charities spoke out.

      • Erin says:

        @ MSIAM I think I misunderstood the term patronages. I thought the term patronages meant only the charities she did through the commonwealth. I didn’t realize it meant all charities. The more you know!

        Definitely not a lot came out, I just meant there were at least a few. Definitely should have meant more.

        Also, when you say bullying charities, what is meant by that? TIA

    • Agreatreckoning says:

      @Jan, My belief is that the director of Himmah never actually made the negative comments. The BM made it up. It wouldn’t be the first time. The BBC’s article from March 27, 2021 didn’t even have a writer’s name attached to it that I could see (the Fail’s story references the director “telling” the BBC). Harper’s Bazaar shared the story on March 24, 2021-without the negative comments. The BBC shared the actual press release on the 26th(on facebook) and the Fail’s story was on the 28th. Looking at Himmah’s site it appears they did put out a release on March 11, 2019 that didn’t get published.jmo It’s curious that some of the stories are saying the donation was August 2020.

      https://www.himmah.co.uk/news-and-press

      Rufus Norris, National Theatre director, came out in support of Meghan, Duchess of Sussex. He refuted different BM tabloid stories via Tatler & the Independent.

  9. Jais says:

    I’m confused and this is just embarrassing. So the headline is she one got 1p from the DM in order to embarrass her and make it look like it was a hollow victory? But she did get more than that so now they all look petty as hell for leading with that headline. And isn’t it old news? This is embarrassing and I’m confused at them even making an effort to make this a thing. They literally must have nothing.

  10. SH says:

    Even the guardian went with it so maybe it was a newspaper association briefing.

  11. Lizzie says:

    HRH Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex won.

  12. Shawna says:

    “…she never had to face a full trial” – you mean the Mail on Sunday never had to face a full trial! Meghan was NOT on trial, you salty folk.

  13. Becks1 says:

    LOL, this isn’t that uncommon, especially in this kind of case, to get nominal damages BUT legal fees paid for, especially when there are multiple claims at play. I hope she frames that one pound check in her office to remind herself that SHE WON.

    So they have to pay….however much in legal fees, last I heard it was 450k, but that was last spring, and they have to pay damages for the copyright, and we don’t know how much but it was “substantial.”

    so yeah, I think Meghan did all right with this one, and I think the Mail, despite its deep pockets, is humiliated that it lost. And no, Meghan doesn’t think that this means the MoS will never write about her again, so that idiot can knock off with the “cloud cuckoo” line – the MoS has NEVER stopped writing about her, even though it keeps threatening that.

    • Jan says:

      Closer to 2 million now.
      MOS made two payments previously, over 3 hundred thousand and over 400 thousand, this case was going on for 3 years.
      Since there was no trail and the MOS was dragging out their lost, the Judge asked them for attorneys fees, before the appeal was heard.

    • windyriver says:

      They were ordered to make a payment on account of 450,000 pounds last spring when the initial ruling came down, then a second payment of 300,000 when the appeal ruling came down in December. I’ve seen estimates of upwards of 1.5 million pounds for her final total legal fees, and they’re paying the bulk, so there’s more coming.

  14. Over it says:

    F them , she won , the mail tabloid trash and Willy and Kate and Jason lost, so again F them

  15. LaraW” says:

    What is with this invisible contract the BM have with the RF regarding Andrew? From what I understand, basically everyone in the UK believes he’s a sweaty nonce— so why go to these lengths to protect him from media exposure? Especially when it will get a ton of clicks? It doesn’t make economic sense.

  16. Amy Bee says:

    No doubt the debacle that occurred the day before with Andrew’s case is what prompted the British press to report on the payment of damages and costs to Meghan. Anybody who still believes that the press doesn’t have a vested interest in Andrew being exonerated is deluded. As for the payment, it’s clear that Meghan got a huge amount of money from MoS, if she didn’t it would have been made public. It’s being kept confidential to spare the embarrassment of MoS and Lord Rothermere that Meghan won her case and that she got a lot of money from them

    • LaraW” says:

      But WHY do they have such a vested interest? I don’t understand— a trial of Andrew would generate just as many— if not more— articles and clicks as the stupid stories they have obsessing over Meghan.

      • Becks1 says:

        I think its because the Andrew trial could significantly damage the monarchy, and the thinking is that a Meghan vs. MoS trial would have just damaged Meghan (since all the stuff about KP colluding with the tabloids against Meghan etc just got swept under the rug by the RRs.)

        Personally I think a trial with the MoS would have been horrible for the monarchy, but that’s just me.

      • LaraW” says:

        That makes sense. But Meghan’s lawsuit is over now and everything juicy is at Giuffre v. Prince Andrew.

        I guess at the end of the day, I don’t understand this cone of silence around Andrew, when the BM is apparently perfectly willing to yank William’s chain whenever he’s pissed them off.

      • ABritGuest says:

        Loads of the media owners & top editors were friends with/ have been pictured with Ghislaine Maxwell or were in Epstein’s contact book so who knows if there’s any kompromat on them. They probably also fundamentally don’t see much wrong with what Epstein & Maxwell did & wouldn’t like the message it sends out if a white British Prince faces punishment for sexual assault. The way the media have been so sympathetic to Ghislaine is very suspect to me as to the attitudes in posh media circles.

        I also think it’s damaging for the monarchy if Andrew is found guilty of sexual assault especially if it risks exposing the lengths the palace went to shield him. the royal family is good for enforcing class structure in the UK & is probably profitable for newspaper owners with all the garbage gossip they churn out so I don’t think they want anything that risks their position in society. I also think apart from legal issues, that’s one reason why certain stories about KP residents aren’t exploited & they insist on propping them up

      • Becks1 says:

        @LaraW – I think its a lot of what ABritGuest says, about other contacts with Epstein and maybe some of those rich people don’t want others looking too hard at their connections with Epstein et al.

        But I think the big reason for the cone of silence is very simple – its coming from the top. The papers are being told by the head of state to not report on something, so they aren’t, or they are doing it but in a very gentle and roundabout fashion, considering the subject matter.

        so basically I think the Queen is using her final days to order the papers to stand down to protect her favorite son.

      • LaraW” says:

        @ABritGuest — I hadn’t thought of the larger picture of the lengths the RF went to in order to protect Andrew. That kind of protection and cover up for years… yeah.

        @Becks1 — I guess it’s her legacy to squander. Like jeez, I can only imagine the history books: blah duty blah, and her long reign ended with the trial of her favorite son, Prince Andrew, who was found guilty by a jury of sexually assaulting a 17-year old girl.

        (I know, it’s a civil suit, but allow my inner historian to embellish lol 😉)

      • Amy Bee says:

        @LaraW: Andrew’s case is of greater detriment to the monarchy than Meghan’s case. He is a blood prince whereas Meghan is seen as an interloper who should not be part of the Royal Family. Andrew’s situation is a reflection on the Queen and her so-called values. People are upset that she has stood by him and is using taxpayers money to fund his case. To the press, being part of the British establishment with many of the journalists coming from aristo stock, Andrew being found liable in this case, threatens destroy the class system which provides them with so much protection and privilege. Meghan marrying into the Royal Family was also seen as threat so they did everything they could to sully her in the eyes of the public and to get her out of the Royal Family.

      • Agreatreckoning says:

        @Lara”W”, along with the BM wanting to make it seem like Meghan lost, the BM could be trying to dissuade anyone who might want to sue them for invasion of privacy. ANL and the others have ongoing lawsuits. Sienna Miller is said to have received a substantial amount. The BM has been reporting the amount anywhere from 35k(pounds/dollars?) to 80k. That might be substantial to a lot of people. It’s not substantial imo for a case that’s gone on for 7 years and how they terrorized Sienna’s life too.

  17. canichangemyname says:

    I mean, they are always going to bash Meghan, and I doubt she cares. She made her escape, won her case, and probably has zero f***s to give about this. I do find it disingenuous to lump Kate in with Andrew. I know Kate is hated here, but seriously? Lumping her in with a sexual predator for … having a birthday?

    • LaraW” says:

      Kaiser is reporting the facts: the BM has saturated the media with stories about Kate, and the BM had also been reporting stories about Andrew. She’s not making a false equivalence— this is what the BM have been writing about these past few days.

  18. equality says:

    It’s to imply that she settled for that out of fear of being exposed for the awful things she has done. They wanted to be able to print in minute detail how Tom revealed that she spit out her pacifier as a child and had a tantrum. Then they could reveal how Kate never cried as a baby because she was perfect. It’s difficult to believe that people read this trash and fall for it.

  19. Sofia says:

    Gotta twist Meghan’s victory as a loss for her somehow. I would have hoped the Guardian would do better than clickbait headlines but that’s the British Media for you I guess.

  20. girl_ninja says:

    She won. They lost. It is as that simple. Those loser “journalist” on Shutter Island are so miserable that Duchess Meghan has moved on from that salty island they are now left crying into their hot beer in their cold musty pubs.

    Bums.

  21. Margaret says:

    The press gazette spelled out the financial findings to be paid, as ordered by the courts. A substantial amount is to be paid on copyright Infringement, the 1 pound was for agreed on amount for the privacy claim. So we are talking 2 different things, and pay outs, along with attorney fees. So the bm misleading the gullible once again, what else is new?.

  22. Blujfly says:

    The British press proving once again that it is a cabal. American papers and networks see each other as rivals and when one demonstrably and credibly screws up, the others report on it. It’s not a protection racket like the British press is. The BBC had one sane libel lawyer but made up for it with all sorts of right wing quotes from the other. They’re obsessed with this “lapse of memory” in spite of the fact that within the opinion itself the court pointed out that the Palace deleted Meghan’s emails every 6 months yet Jason still had access to them.

  23. aquarius64 says:

    The BM is mad Meghan put foot to @$$ to it in court and it won’t get the show trial it wanted; therefore loss of more profits. The media coven also doesn’t want to highlight KP’s role in this mess. I hope part of the settlement is the amounts Bad Dad has been paid (wouldn’t be surprised if he was paid to testify against her in court). Finally it confirms the BM is a joke; a boil on the body of journalism that needs to be lanced.

  24. Rapunzel says:

    There was also a story on the Fail about how the Sussexes only made $50,000 dollars for their Archewell charity and spent more money dissolving their prior Royal charity. It was a desperate hit piece that obvious only came out to distract from other negative stories on The Cambridges/Andrew/Charles.

  25. Yinyang says:

    The British Family has turned out so many losers and need Meghan the American to save them.

  26. Lady Digby says:

    ANL also under Court Order had to destroy Confidential Schedule that identified Meghan 5 friends who contributed to People article. I suspect a fear may have been leaking identities to Bad dad as he has been threatening to sue over this article if he could find out who they were. She doesn’t want to have this particular information leaked because throughout out this exhausting legal battle she has sought to protect her friends.

    • Charm says:

      Nothing to do with toxicTom and everything to do with preventing the FAIL from targeting and pursuing and harassing these friends like they love to do with people who defy them.

  27. L4Frimaire says:

    They may be trying to mislead with that £1 headline, but the fact is, regardless of how deep their pockets are, the Fail having to shell out millions and admit they lost has got to burn. I don’t care what she does with the money, and how much she donates. Since these tabloids want her to do things quietly, hope they never know and she shows up with a big Birken bag.

  28. Charm says:

    I hope theres a clause to the clause abt not disclosing the sum of money M will receive for damages to her copyright infringement case, from an accounting of the profits dailyFAIL made from printing the letter…..a clause that says IF dailyFAIL misrepresents the truth abt M’s win, then the NDA is null and void and M is free to shout the details from the rooftops if she likes.

    • Lady Digby says:

      Let’s hope so and it maybe such a clause that prevented Fail from ballyhooing 1 pound aspect because they have paid loads in legal fees. Yes the owner has deep pockets but they lost and had to pay in the region of 1.5 million in legal fees alone plus undisclosed account of profits from offending articles. They lost big time!

      • Jais says:

        It’s been reported through her spokesperson that Meghan is going to donate the money to an anti-bullying charity, according to harpers bazaar and WP, I believe. So at some point, if Meghan drops 2 mil or whatever amount to a charity, it might give an idea without her saying a word.

  29. Penelope says:

    I just want to say I have never heard the phrase Phyrric victory before so I looked it up and I’m glad I did. Ooooh I can’t wait to show off my fancy new word!!

  30. aquarius64 says:

    Is Bad Dad penalized bin any way?

  31. Gabby says:

    I wish she would have demanded that the Fail publish a front page accounting of all the funds they have paid to the Markle train wreck relatives from the beginning. Dad from hell, the weirdo uncles and the psycho siblings. Their shameful payouts should be puslished for the world and the IRS to see. Furthermore, they should have had to admit which Markle train wreck directives came from KP. Because we know they did.

  32. CQ says:

    After the way Meghan’s 1 pound was reported in regards to her lawsuit victory ,newspapers deserve to go out of business! That is not reporting! Multiple publications just repeated a misleading story. Just lemmings at the trough.

  33. blunt talker says:

    I read the entire article on yahoo-it wrote first about the 1 pound-then it explained about the infringement amount was much more substanial-the Brits have forgotten how to read and write I guess-Shitgibbons of the UK.