Public Figures and Privacy: A Different Test or Just Different Facts?
When fame meets privacy law, the legal bar doesn't rise – but the scrutiny certainly does
The Myth of the Celebrity Exception
Here's a question that resurfaces every time a famous person takes a privacy case to court: should they have to clear a higher bar than the rest of us? It's particularly relevant right now, with Prince Harry due to give evidence next Thursday at London's High Court in his privacy lawsuit against Associated Newspapers, publisher of the Daily Mail.
The case, which also involves Sir Elton John, Baroness Doreen Lawrence and others, alleges unlawful information gathering dating back 30 years. It's Prince Harry's second time giving evidence in court in three years – he previously became the first British royal to testify in 130 years when he successfully sued Mirror Group Newspapers in 2023.
The stakes are high. Associated Newspapers vigorously denies all allegations, and with costs for both sides likely to total around £40 million, the nine-week trial represents a major test of how privacy law applies when claimants are household names.
But what actually is the test? The legal answer might surprise you. UK courts have been remarkably consistent: fame doesn't strip you of privacy rights. Public figures retain a reasonable expectation of privacy, even when there's genuine public interest in their lives. As privacy law scholar Professor Lorna Woods has noted, celebrity status "alters the context, not the existence, of the right."
What changes is how courts examine whether publishing private information serves a legitimate purpose, rather than feeding public curiosity.
Public Interest vs Public Curiosity
This distinction – between what interests the public and what's in the public interest – is where cases involving well-known figures typically turn. Courts aren't easily swayed by arguments that attention alone justifies intrusion.
Instead, judges ask pointed questions: Does this publication advance democratic accountability? Does it expose wrongdoing? Does it inform public debate? If the answer is no, the claimant's fame offers little protection to the publisher.
Media law commentator David Banks has observed that courts have become increasingly sceptical of "public interest by association" – the idea that celebrity status automatically transforms private matters into legitimate news.
The Erosion Argument
Public figures do face a different evidentiary landscape. Their lives generate extensive coverage, and defendants regularly cite this to argue that privacy has already been eroded.
Courts have largely rejected this circular reasoning. As media lawyer Gavin Millar KC has pointed out, widespread reporting doesn't extinguish privacy expectations if the underlying information was obtained unlawfully. You can't justify your intrusion by pointing to everyone else's.
Rights vs Remedies
There's another, more subtle distinction worth noting. Whilst the legal threshold for establishing a privacy breach remains the same regardless of fame, judges may consider a public figure's existing platform when assessing damages.
This doesn't mean wealthy claimants have a harder time proving their case. But it can affect what happens after liability is established. Privacy law expert Hugh Tomlinson KC has described this as distinguishing "between having a right and how harm is measured."
Methods Matter as Much as Outcomes
Privacy law regulates methods, not just outcomes. Even where a story is accurate, the means by which information is obtained remains legally relevant.
Unlawful interception, deception or data misuse aren't retroactively justified by the subject's prominence. As Professor Jacob Rowbottom of Oxford University has argued, treating fame as a blanket waiver would create a two-tier system of legal protection, undermining the universality of rights.
This becomes particularly important when considering investigative journalism. There's a world of difference between reporting on matters of genuine public concern and violating someone's privacy because it will generate clicks.
The Real Question
So do public figures face a higher bar? Not exactly. What they face is the same balancing test applied under conditions of heightened visibility and more complex facts.
As Sir Geoffrey Vos, Master of the Rolls, observed in recent cases, courts must protect individuals without chilling legitimate journalism, whilst safeguarding press freedom without granting immunity through notoriety.
The law refuses to accept that fame is a price paid in privacy. Instead, it asks harder questions about public interest, proportionality and the methods used to obtain information. That's not a higher bar – it's just a more rigorous application of the same principles that protect us all.