![\"play\"](\"https:\/\/www.gannett-cdn.com\/appservices\/universal-web\/universal\/icons\/icon-play-alt-white.svg\"){kind=icon}
<\/div>\n<\/div>\nPrince Harry faces royal drama amid return home<\/p>\n
USA TODAY’s royal reporter Jennifer Hassan shares the latest on Prince Harry’s return to London amid confusion over his Buckingham Palace stay.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
<\/media-video><\/div>\n
LONDON \u2013\u00a0It’s a big day for Prince Harry<\/a>.<\/p>\n The duke<\/a>, who is visiting his home country for a week, has lost<\/a> his privacy lawsuit<\/a> against Associated Newspapers Limited, publisher of the Daily\u00a0Mail, the Mail on Sunday and MailOnline.<\/p>\n The highly anticipated verdict comes after Harry, along with six other high-profile claimants including Elton John and Elizabeth Hurley, sued Associated Newspapers, alleging unlawful information gathering. Alleged privacy breaches include voicemail interception, phone hacking and obtaining personal information through deception.<\/p>\n Associated Newspapers has denied the allegations, deeming them “preposterous” and arguing that its journalists relied on legitimate sources for information, including friends and royal aides.<\/p>\n There was no court hearing Tuesday, July 7; instead, the judgment in the legal case was handed down remotely. Harry was photographed waving to crowds as he attended a separate charity event in London.<\/p>\n The claims have been dismissed, the written judgement said.<\/p>\n Harry and Baroness Doreen Lawrence addressed the ruling in a statement Tuesday to USA TODAY. “We came to Court seeking justice and accountability. But we have received neither,” the statement said.<\/p>\n They further allege “generic findings about various private investigators” engaging in “unlawful activity” were “wholly ignored” by the court, and say the decision to dismiss the case “represents an inconsistency which is hard to understand or reconcile with common sense, or the evidence heard in the court room itself.”<\/p>\n “It is a complete and obvious whitewash, but sadly not altogether unexpected,” per the statement. “However, the lengths to which the Court has gone to exonerate the Mail is as shocking as it is totally unwarranted.”<\/p>\n