Prince Harry Lawsuit: The Full 2026 Case Breakdown

Quick Answer Box

• What the case is: Prince Harry brought civil claims against two major UK newspaper groups for phone hacking, unlawful information gathering, and misuse of private information, resulting in one landmark trial verdict and one landmark settlement.
• Who qualifies: Harry was an individual claimant; others who believe they were victims of similar unlawful newsgathering by the same publishers may have standing to bring their own claims under UK privacy tort law.
• What it's worth: Harry's Mirror Group trial produced a damages award of approximately £140,000; his separate settlement with News Group Newspapers in January 2025 included a substantial undisclosed sum and a formal public apology.

Case Snapshot

Introduction

The Prince Harry lawsuit is not one case. It is a documented legal campaign across two distinct sets of civil proceedings in the King's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice in London, targeting two of the most powerful newspaper groups in the English-speaking world.

Harry became the first senior British royal to testify in court in more than 130 years when he took the stand in the Mirror Group trial in June 2023. That courtroom decision changed the legal calculus for dozens of other claimants still in the pipeline.

If you are curious, also see Taylor Swift Lawsuit 2026: Cases, Claims & Payouts

The Mirror Group proceedings concluded with a January 2024 judgment awarding Harry approximately £140,000 in damages across 15 out of 33 articles examined. His separate claims against News Group Newspapers, publishers of The Sun and the now-defunct News of the World, resolved in January 2025 with an apology and a reportedly significant financial settlement.

As of 2026, both cases are closed at the primary litigation level. What remains are questions about broader industry accountability, the precedent both cases created, and whether related claims by others will survive the legal framework Harry's cases established.

Prince Harry Lawsuit Overview 2026

The Prince Harry lawsuit, in its full legal scope, refers to civil proceedings brought under UK privacy tort law against two newspaper publisher groups: Mirror Group Newspapers and News Group Newspapers.

Both actions centered on allegations that journalists, editors, and private investigators working for those publishers engaged in systematic unlawful newsgathering. The methods included voicemail interception, blagging personal records, and commissioning surveillance operations targeting Harry and those around him.

The two cases ran on parallel but distinct tracks. The Mirror Group matter proceeded to a full trial in 2023, with Justice Timothy Fancourt presiding. The News Group matter settled in January 2025 before any trial date was reached.

What remains in 2026:

• The MGN judgment stands as a final, public record of unlawful conduct.
• The NGN settlement agreement includes a confidentiality clause on the financial terms.
• Other claimants in the broader phone hacking litigation pool continue to bring their own proceedings.

*Attorney Insight: Attorneys tracking transnational privacy tort developments note that Harry's decision to pursue full trials rather than accept early confidential settlements has produced more detailed public court records than any comparable celebrity privacy case in recent UK history.*

Prince Harry Phone Hacking Lawsuit Explained

Phone hacking, in the legal sense used in these proceedings, refers primarily to voicemail interception. The practice involved accessing a target's voicemail inbox before the target retrieved messages, allowing investigators to listen to messages intended to be private.

Beyond voicemail interception, Harry's claims documented a broader ecosystem of unlawful information gathering. This included paying corrupt police officers for personal data, commissioning private investigators to conduct surveillance, and obtaining medical and financial records through deceptive means.

The legal tort at the center of both cases is "misuse of private information," a cause of action established in English common law following the House of Lords decision in *Campbell v. MGN* [2004] UKHL 22. It requires claimants to show a reasonable expectation of privacy in the information gathered, and that the publisher's use of it was not justified by any competing public interest.

Key unlawful methods documented in Harry's claims:

• Voicemail interception (the "phone hacking" core allegation)
• Blagging, meaning obtaining information through deception of third parties
• Surveillance and physical following by private investigators
• Corrupt acquisition of police records and personal data

*Attorney Insight: Attorneys handling privacy tort claims point to the phone hacking litigation as establishing clearer evidentiary standards for proving institutional knowledge, meaning a claimant does not have to prove any individual editor personally ordered each intrusion.*

Prince Harry NGN Lawsuit Settlement

The settlement between Prince Harry and News Group Newspapers was announced in January 2025, resolving claims that had been pending for several years against the publishers of The Sun and the defunct News of the World.

The settlement was notable for three reasons. First, NGN delivered a formal public apology, which Harry's legal team described as unprecedented from that publisher. Second, the financial terms, while not publicly disclosed, were described by sources close to the proceedings as substantial. Third, the settlement followed years of NGN denying all phone hacking at The Sun, a denial that had been publicly contradicted by mounting evidence in parallel proceedings.

Harry's claims against NGN were among the most closely watched in the broader phone hacking litigation because The Sun's involvement was the most disputed. Mirror Group had already been adjudicated. NGN's decision to settle rather than face trial was read by legal observers as a strategic concession.

NGN Settlement Key Points:

*Attorney Insight: Attorneys familiar with the UK media litigation space note that a formal published apology from a Murdoch-owned title to a royal claimant is without precedent, and that the settlement structure suggests Harry's legal team had sufficiently strong documentary evidence to make trial a genuine risk for NGN.*

Litigation Watch: The NGN settlement and the MGN trial verdict together represent the most significant royal privacy litigation outcomes in modern UK legal history, creating a documented record of systemic unlawful newsgathering across two major publisher groups.

How Much Did Prince Harry Get in His Lawsuit

Harry received a confirmed damages award of approximately £140,000 from Mirror Group Newspapers following the January 2024 High Court judgment. Justice Fancourt found that 15 of the 33 articles Harry had challenged were the product of unlawful information gathering.

The award covered compensatory damages for distress, loss of privacy, and the impact of the unlawful intrusions on his personal relationships and mental health. Harry had given detailed testimony about the psychological impact of discovering that private communications had been intercepted.

The NGN settlement figure has not been publicly disclosed under the terms of the agreement. Harry's legal team did not characterize it numerically in public statements. However, the combination of a formal apology and a confidential sum from NGN, added to the MGN damages, makes the total financial outcome of both proceedings significant by any civil litigation standard.

Financial Record (What Is Confirmed):

*Attorney Insight: Attorneys in high-stakes privacy tort cases note that claimants often weigh financial recovery against the strategic value of a public judgment, and Harry's MGN trial produced both a damages award and a detailed public finding of unlawful conduct at an institutional level.*

Prince Harry Mirror Group Lawsuit Verdict

The Mirror Group trial was the centerpiece of Harry's public legal campaign. Proceedings before Justice Timothy Fancourt in the King's Bench Division ran from May through July 2023. Harry testified personally on June 6 and 7, 2023, a decision that carried significant legal and political weight.

Justice Fancourt delivered his judgment on January 15, 2024. He found that Mirror Group Newspapers had engaged in a "substantial" number of phone hacking incidents targeting Harry and that those incidents were authorized or approved at senior editorial levels.

Of the 33 articles Harry's team placed before the court, Fancourt found 15 were the result of unlawful information gathering. He rejected 18 articles as either not proven to be the product of hacking or outside the limitation period. The £140,000 damages figure was calculated across the 15 successful articles.

MGN Verdict Summary:

*Attorney Insight: Attorneys representing other MGN claimants noted that the finding of senior editorial knowledge, rather than rogue-employee conduct, materially strengthened the position of other claimants whose cases were still pending at the time of judgment.*

Prince Harry High Court Case Details

Both sets of Harry's civil proceedings were filed in and heard by the King's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice, based at the Royal Courts of Justice on the Strand in London.

The King's Bench Division is the appropriate venue for large-scale civil claims involving defamation, privacy, and media law in England and Wales. There is no exact U.S. structural equivalent, but the Division occupies a similar role to a U.S. federal district court with specialized media tort jurisdiction.

Harry's Mirror Group claim was assigned Claim Number KB-2019-003723. That number is a matter of public record in the UK court system. The claim was filed in 2019 and proceeded through multiple interlocutory hearings, disclosure phases, and preliminary rulings before reaching trial in 2023.

Court Record Key Facts:

• Court: King's Bench Division, High Court of Justice
• Location: Royal Courts of Justice, London
• MGN Claim Number: KB-2019-003723
• Assigned Judge: Justice Timothy Fancourt
• Trial Period: May to July 2023
• Judgment: January 15, 2024

*Attorney Insight: Attorneys handling parallel phone hacking claims note that the public filing of claim numbers and the open publication of Justice Fancourt's full judgment provide an unusually detailed evidentiary record for future claimants seeking to establish similar institutional conduct.*

Litigation Watch: The King's Bench Division proceedings against both MGN and NGN produced the most detailed public judicial record of tabloid unlawful newsgathering in UK legal history, with Justice Fancourt's January 2024 ruling serving as the controlling precedent for outstanding claims.

Who Was the Judge in the Prince Harry Lawsuit

Justice Timothy Fancourt presided over the Mirror Group trial. He sits in the Chancery Division and King's Bench Division of the High Court, and was assigned to the media and communications list that grouped many of the related phone hacking claims together.

Fancourt's judgment in the Harry case ran to considerable length and is publicly available through the National Archives of the UK Courts. It assessed each of the 33 challenged articles individually, applying the legal test from *Campbell v. MGN* and its progeny.

His analysis of editorial knowledge was particularly significant. Rather than treating phone hacking as an isolated act by individual reporters, Fancourt examined whether MGN's senior editorial structure had approved or turned a blind eye to the methods being used.

Justice Fancourt's Role in Phone Hacking Litigation:

• Presided over multiple related phone hacking claims, not only Harry's
• Authored the controlling January 15, 2024 judgment in Harry's MGN case
• Applied the misuse of private information test from *Campbell v. MGN* [2004]
• Found institutional editorial awareness of unlawful methods

*Attorney Insight: Attorneys watching the broader litigation note that having a single experienced judge oversee related claims creates a more consistent evidentiary record, and Fancourt's rulings on what constitutes sufficient editorial knowledge are now cited in multiple pending claimant submissions.*

What Legal Theories Were Used in the Prince Harry Lawsuit

The central cause of action in both proceedings was misuse of private information, a tort recognized in English law. A claimant must establish two elements: first, a reasonable expectation of privacy over the information at issue; second, that the defendant's use of that information was not proportionate to any legitimate competing interest.

Harry's claims also relied on the tort of unlawful information gathering, which the courts have recognized as a distinct but related cause of action where private investigators are engaged to obtain information through illegal means such as blagging or hacking.

A third legal thread involved breach of confidence, a longer-established tort in English law that predates misuse of private information and provides an alternative route where information was obtained or disclosed in circumstances importing an obligation of confidence.

Legal Theories Applied:

*Attorney Insight: Attorneys familiar with the privacy tort field note that the recognition of unlawful information gathering as a standalone cause of action, affirmed through the phone hacking litigation, significantly expands the range of claimants who can bring claims even where voicemail hacking specifically cannot be proven.*

Prince Harry Misuse of Private Information Claim

The misuse of private information claim sits at the legal core of Harry's Mirror Group proceedings. Justice Fancourt evaluated each article against the two-stage test: whether Harry had a reasonable expectation of privacy over the specific information reported, and whether MGN had any proportionate public interest justification for publishing it.

Across the 15 articles where Harry succeeded, Fancourt found that the information reported was private in nature, relating to his relationships, mental health, personal conduct, and communications, and that no public interest defense applied.

Worth reading: AT&T Data Breach Lawsuit: Sign Up & Claim Guide 2026

The articles Harry lost did not necessarily involve information that was public. Several failed because Harry could not prove the specific article resulted from unlawful information gathering, as opposed to lawful journalistic sources.

Misuse of Private Information Test Applied:

1. Did the claimant have a reasonable expectation of privacy over the information?
2. If yes, was the publisher's use of that information proportionate to a legitimate aim (such as genuine public interest journalism)?
3. If no legitimate aim existed, damages are available.

*Attorney Insight: Attorneys working on privacy claims emphasize that the second stage of this test, the proportionality analysis, is where tabloid defendants have historically mounted their strongest defenses, and Harry's trial produced a rigorous judicial assessment of what "public interest" actually requires.*

Litigation Watch: The misuse of private information test, as applied by Justice Fancourt across 33 articles in the Harry case, now stands as the most detailed and publicly available application of that legal standard in the UK phone hacking context, giving future claimants a granular blueprint for structuring their own claims.

Prince Harry Unlawful Information Gathering Case

Unlawful information gathering is a cause of action that extends beyond voicemail interception to cover a broader network of illegal methods used by private investigators working for tabloid publications. Harry's claims documented a systematic PI network operating across multiple titles.

The evidence introduced in the MGN trial included invoices, email communications between editorial staff and investigators, and testimony about the standard practices at tabloid titles during the period in question. Justice Fancourt found this network to be institutional, not an anomaly.

Key methods documented included "blagging," the practice of calling data holders such as banks or phone companies while pretending to be the subject or someone authorized to receive their information. Physical surveillance and corrupt acquisition of police records were also evidenced.

Methods Comprising "Unlawful Information Gathering":

• Voicemail interception (direct hacking)
• Blagging: deceptive acquisition of personal data from third parties
• Commissioning surveillance operations
• Corrupt payments to serving police officers for personal data
• Obtaining medical or financial records through deception

*Attorney Insight: Attorneys with experience in related litigation note that the breadth of the unlawful information gathering theory is significant for other claimants because it allows them to bring claims even in cases where voicemail interception specifically cannot be forensically proven, provided systematic PI usage can be established.*

Prince Harry Lawsuit Timeline 2026

A full chronological record of the proceedings places the legal campaign in proper perspective. Harry's legal actions were years in the making, pursued against publishers who had the resources to mount protracted defenses.

Full Litigation Timeline:

*Attorney Insight: Attorneys tracking the broader phone hacking litigation note that Harry's willingness to pursue the MGN case to judgment, rather than accepting a settlement, changed the evidentiary record available to other claimants and accelerated settlement discussions in parallel proceedings.*

Prince Harry Lawsuit and Rupert Murdoch Connection

The News Group Newspapers case placed Harry's litigation directly in proximity to the Murdoch media empire. NGN is a subsidiary of News UK, which is in turn owned by News Corp, the parent company controlled by Rupert Murdoch.

Harry has been public in his view that the phone hacking at The Sun was known at the highest levels of the NGN organization. His legal team's position throughout the NGN proceedings was that senior editors and executives, not rogue investigators, were the appropriate targets of liability.

NGN's January 2025 settlement, including its formal admission that unlawful activities had occurred, was widely interpreted as a strategic decision to avoid a trial that might have compelled disclosure of internal communications reaching further up the editorial chain.

NGN Corporate Structure Relevant to the Lawsuit:

*Attorney Insight: Attorneys who have tracked News Corp's global litigation exposure note that a formal institutional apology from NGN carries strategic significance beyond this single case, as it creates an admission record that other claimants may seek to reference in their own proceedings.*

Prince Harry Lawsuit News of the World

The now-defunct News of the World was the publication at the center of the original 2011 phone hacking scandal that triggered Operation Weeting and the broader UK press ethics crisis. It was shut down by Rupert Murdoch in July 2011 as the scale of the hacking became publicly known.

Harry's NGN claims covered both The Sun and the News of the World. While the News of the World no longer publishes, its legal liability was inherited by NGN and was included within the scope of Harry's claims and the January 2025 settlement.

The Leveson Inquiry, which ran from 2011 to 2012, produced a detailed public record of phone hacking practices at the News of the World. That inquiry record provided a foundation for many subsequent civil claims, including Harry's.

News of the World Key Facts:

• Founded: 1843
• Closure: July 10, 2011 (Murdoch decision following hacking scandal)
• Legal Liability: Assumed by News Group Newspapers Ltd
• Role in Harry's Claim: One of two publications covered under NGN claim
• Leveson Inquiry: Named News of the World as central to systematic hacking

*Attorney Insight: Attorneys representing other NGN claimants note that Harry's settled claim covering News of the World conduct is particularly significant because the publication's closure prevented full discovery of its internal records in earlier proceedings, and the January 2025 settlement terms may provide a benchmark for valuing similar claims.*

Litigation Watch: The inclusion of News of the World liability within the NGN settlement, combined with the MGN trial judgment, means that Harry's legal actions have now produced formal accountability across three UK tabloid titles from two separate publisher groups.

Can Other People File Similar Phone Hacking Claims

The broader UK phone hacking litigation pool remains active as of 2026. Harry's cases are resolved, but many other claimants, including public figures, celebrities, politicians, and private individuals, have pending or newly filed claims against both MGN and NGN.

The legal standard established through cases like Harry's and others has created a clearer pathway for claimants who can show that they were targets of unlawful newsgathering during the relevant period. The relevant limitation period in England and Wales is six years for claims in tort, but courts have allowed some claimants to argue for extended limitation periods where the unlawful conduct was deliberately concealed.

Justice Fancourt's ruling on institutional editorial knowledge has made it more difficult for publisher defendants to argue that only individual reporters, rather than the organization, bear liability. That ruling helps claimants seeking damages from the publisher as a corporate entity.

Who May Have a Valid Claim:

• Public figures targeted by MGN or NGN publications between roughly 1996 and 2011
• Anyone whose voicemail was accessed without authorization by PI networks working for those titles
• Individuals whose personal records were obtained through blagging or corrupt police contacts
• Claimants who can establish a reasonable expectation of privacy over specific information that was published

*Attorney Insight: Attorneys currently handling related claims in the King's Bench Division note that the evidence produced in Harry's trial, including disclosed PI invoices and editorial communications, is now available as part of the broader litigation record and is being used to support other claimants' disclosure requests.*

Prince Harry Lawsuit United States Implications

The Harry litigation is a UK proceeding, but it carries implications that extend to the United States through several channels. News Corp, the ultimate parent company of NGN, is a U.S.-incorporated entity listed on the Nasdaq exchange.

Harry and his wife Meghan are California residents. In prior years, Harry's legal team filed related proceedings in U.S. courts concerning different matters, demonstrating that his legal strategy has always operated across both jurisdictions. His retained U.S. counsel has worked alongside his UK solicitors at Hamlins.

From a U.S. legal-theory perspective, the torts used in Harry's UK cases have partial analogues in American law. Misuse of private information maps closely to the tort of public disclosure of private facts recognized in a majority of U.S. states. Unlawful information gathering maps to federal and state wiretapping statutes.

UK-to-U.S. Legal Theory Equivalence:

*Attorney Insight: Attorneys with experience in transnational privacy tort matters note that while Harry's UK judgments are not directly enforceable in U.S. courts, the factual findings regarding News Corp-affiliated entities may be relevant to any U.S. regulatory, shareholder, or civil proceedings touching the same underlying conduct.*

Prince Harry Lawsuit Latest News 2026

The primary litigation is resolved as of 2026. Harry's MGN judgment is final. His NGN settlement is signed and closed. No appeal has been publicly filed or reported in either matter.

What continues are the downstream consequences of both cases. Dozens of other claimants remain in active proceedings against both MGN and NGN in the King's Bench Division. Harry's trial judgment and the documentary evidence disclosed through his proceedings continue to influence those cases.

Another useful guide: Apple Watch Lawsuit 2026: Claims, Payouts, Updates

The Murdoch media ecosystem also faces ongoing scrutiny in the UK from press regulators and Parliament. The formal admission within the NGN settlement has reignited calls for a fuller public accounting of what senior executives knew and when.

2026 Status Summary:

*Attorney Insight: Attorneys monitoring the broader phone hacking docket note that 2026 is a year of consolidation rather than new headline filings, with the Harry judgments serving as the structural backbone for the remaining claimant pool.*

What Happens Next in the Prince Harry Lawsuit

Harry's personal litigation is concluded. Both primary cases are resolved, either by judgment or settlement, and no appellate proceedings are on record as of 2026.

The legal consequences of his cases continue to propagate. Justice Fancourt's January 2024 ruling remains the authoritative statement on institutional editorial liability in UK phone hacking litigation. It is cited in pending claims and referenced in judicial case management decisions.

The NGN settlement's formal admission of unlawful conduct at The Sun opens a question that UK legal commentators have identified: whether that admission can be used in other proceedings as evidence of NGN's institutional practice. Courts will need to rule on the admissibility of settlement-contained admissions in related claims.

Outstanding Legal Questions in 2026:

• Whether the NGN admission of unlawful conduct can be referenced in other claimants' proceedings
• Whether the limitation period can be extended for claimants who discovered the full extent of hacking only after Harry's trial
• Whether UK parliamentary action will produce changes to press regulation that affect civil liability standards
• What the precedent from Harry's MGN judgment means for damages calculations in other celebrity and public-figure claims

*Attorney Insight: Attorneys representing outstanding phone hacking claimants are watching two specific questions: the admissibility of the NGN settlement admission in related proceedings, and whether Fancourt's damages methodology in Harry's case sets a benchmark for future awards.*

Litigation Watch: The resolution of Harry's personal litigation in 2025 and 2026 did not close the phone hacking chapter. It opened a more detailed evidentiary foundation that other claimants, courts, and regulators are now using to advance their own proceedings and inquiries.

Should You Talk to a Lawyer About Phone Hacking Claims

If you believe you were targeted by UK tabloid publications through voicemail interception, blagging, or unlawful surveillance between approximately 1996 and 2011, you may have a viable civil claim in the King's Bench Division.

The limitation period in England and Wales for tort claims is six years, but courts have extended that period in phone hacking cases where defendants deliberately concealed the unlawful conduct. That concealment argument has been successfully advanced in multiple related proceedings.

Attorneys handling these claims typically operate under conditional fee agreements in the UK, meaning claimants often do not pay legal fees unless the claim succeeds. The standard for bringing a claim has been clarified, not made more difficult, by Justice Fancourt's 2024 judgment.

Key Considerations Before Consulting an Attorney:

*Attorney Insight: Attorneys handling current King's Bench Division claims encourage potential claimants who have not yet come forward to consult a solicitor specializing in media law before concluding that the limitation period has passed, given the judicial treatment of concealment arguments in recent rulings.*

Frequently Asked Questions

What was the Prince Harry lawsuit about?

Prince Harry brought civil claims against two UK newspaper publishers for voicemail interception, unlawful information gathering, and misuse of private information.

His Mirror Group claim was filed in 2019 under Claim Number KB-2019-003723 and resulted in a trial before Justice Timothy Fancourt.

His News Group Newspapers claim, covering The Sun and News of the World, settled in January 2025 with a formal apology and undisclosed financial payment.

How much did Prince Harry receive in his lawsuit settlement?

The Mirror Group judgment awarded Harry approximately £140,000 in damages, confirmed in Justice Fancourt's January 15, 2024 ruling.

The News Group Newspapers settlement amount was not disclosed publicly under the terms of the agreement.

Harry's total financial recovery across both cases is not publicly known in full.

Who was the judge in Prince Harry's phone hacking trial?

Justice Timothy Fancourt of the King's Bench Division presided over Harry's trial against Mirror Group Newspapers.

His judgment, delivered January 15, 2024, found unlawful conduct across 15 of the 33 articles examined.

No trial was held in the NGN matter; that case settled before any trial date was set.

What is the difference between the NGN and Mirror Group lawsuits?

The Mirror Group case went to a full public trial in 2023, producing a detailed judicial judgment with specific findings on editorial knowledge.

The NGN case covered The Sun and News of the World and settled in January 2025 with a formal apology but without a public trial or judgment on the merits.

Both cases involved the same core legal theories but produced different procedural outcomes and different levels of public disclosure.

Can other people still file phone hacking claims in 2026?

Yes. Active proceedings by other claimants against both MGN and NGN continue in the King's Bench Division as of 2026.

The six-year limitation period applies, but courts have allowed claimants to argue for extended periods where unlawful conduct was deliberately concealed.

Attorneys handling these claims note that Justice Fancourt's 2024 judgment strengthened, rather than weakened, the prospects for similar claims by others who can establish they were targeted.

Does the Prince Harry lawsuit have any implications for U.S. courts?

Harry's UK judgments are not directly enforceable in U.S. courts, but the underlying conduct involves News Corp, a U.S.-listed company.

The voicemail interception methods documented in UK proceedings would constitute violations of the Federal Wiretap Act if conducted in the United States.

Harry and Meghan's California residency and his U.S.-based legal counsel mean that any future domestic legal actions would proceed under U.S. federal and California state law, though no such filing has been publicly confirmed as of 2026.

Closing

The Prince Harry lawsuit reached its conclusion across two separate proceedings in 2024 and 2025, producing one public trial judgment and one negotiated settlement that together represent the most fully documented accountability exercise in the history of UK tabloid phone hacking litigation.

Both primary cases are now closed. What the cases left behind is a detailed public record: a named judge, a public claim number, a published judgment, and a formal institutional apology from one of the world's most powerful media companies.

If you believe you were targeted by UK tabloid newsgathering methods, the legal standard has been clearly established. Consulting a solicitor specializing in media privacy litigation in England and Wales, or a U.S. attorney with transnational privacy tort experience if you are based in the United States, is the appropriate starting point to assess whether a viable claim exists.

Do not miss this: Meta Lawsuit 2026: Cases, Settlements & Your Rights