Harry and Meghan: News agency apology over 'drone photos' of son

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex have won an apology from a US news agency after drones were allegedly used to take pictures of their son, Archie.

The couple's case at Los Angeles County Superior Court said the 14-month-old was photographed at their home in the city by an unnamed person during the coronanvirus lockdown.

They described the incident as an invasion of privacy.

The X17 agency will also reimburse some of the royal couple's legal fees.

It has agreed to hand over the photos, destroy any copies it holds and stop distributing the images.

• Meghan and Harry book can be used in privacy case

• Prince Harry repays cottage renovation cost

• Harry and Meghan plan to freeze out tabloids

Prince Harry and Meghan are now based in Santa Barbara, California, having stepped back as senior royals at the end of March.

According to court documents, they were living at the home of a friend in Los Angeles when the photographs were taken of Archie and Meghan's mother, Doria Ragland.

'Successful outcome'

Their lawyer Michael Kump said: "Over the summer, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex took action against intrusive and illegal paparazzi photos taken of their family at a private residence...

"This is a successful outcome. All families have a right, protected by law, to feel safe and secure at home."

According to the legal action filed in July, the royal couple were constantly being followed by paparazzi, who tracked them down following their move to the US, flying helicopters overhead and cutting holes in their security fences.

California privacy laws make photographing or filming anyone in their homes by use of drone or telephoto lenses illegal.

In a statement, X17 said: "We apologise to the Duke and Duchess of Sussex and their son for the distress we have caused.

"We were wrong to offer these photographs and commit to not doing so again."

In a separate legal action in London, against the publisher of the Mail on Sunday and Mail Online, Meghan is suing for breach of privacy and copyright infringement over the publication of a letter she wrote to her father. The publisher denies the claims.