Note the use of the word "they". Yet this, as the Court of Appeal specifically reiterated, was a judgment on a narrow issue involving just one newspaper.
The American former actress had started out on this legal journey in October 2019 trying to make it a case of Meghan versus the media. She claimed to be the victim of a "vendetta" and her lawyers tried to include a caché of negative articles in evidence but the original judge, Mr Justice, now Lord Justice Warby, swiftly struck them out.
Instead, the case boiled down to one simple premise - whether it was "proportionate" to have countered a People magazine article from February 2019 featuring Meghan's friends "speaking the truth" about her relationship with her father by publishing 585 out of 1250 words she had subsequently written to Thomas Markle.
The Court of Appeal decided it wasn't, but supported Lord Justice Warby's view that had Associated Newspapers Ltd published a much smaller part of the letter, it would probably have won.
So let's just keep this decision in perspective, rather than elevating it, as Meghan has, to "an important measure of right versus wrong".
Not so subtly referring to the "daily fail", the nickname of the Daily Mail in some quarters, the 40-year-old mother of two claimed in her statement that "tomorrow it could be you".
She added: "These harmful practices don't happen once in a blue moon - they are a daily fail that divide us, and we all deserve better."
But in reality, bar this individual instance, royal privacy has never been more respected than it is today.
Members of the royal family are no longer pursued going about their private lives and unlike in California, where the Sussexes now reside, there is no market in the UK for long-lens paparazzi photographs.
Yes, acres of newsprint are written about the couple, but in Harry and Meghan's case they have actively courted publicity since they left the royal family, predominantly by giving a 90-minute primetime TV interview to Oprah Winfrey accusing the royal family of racism.
As with that cosy sofa chat, in being forced to apologise to the court for failing to remember she had collaborated with the authors of Finding Freedom, having previously stated otherwise via her lawyers, we learned that "recollections may vary" when it comes to the gospel according to Meghan.
"This was at best an unfortunate lapse of memory on her part," said Sir Geoffrey Vos, one of the three judges presiding, refusing to elaborate on what a worst case scenario might be.
There is no doubt that this is a coup not only for the duchess but the royal family - who had been dreading the prospect of the case going to trial, when yet more correspondence between the Sussexes and their staff would inevitably have been laid bare for the media to lap up.
But it is definitely not a vindication of Harry and Meghan's repeated attacks on the entire media, nor does it add up to the vilification of the "evil" press that the royal victim is making it out to be.
On the contrary, what Meghan has proven is that when newspapers get it wrong, there is a legal recourse (provided you have got Netflix levels of cash to pay for a 25-month legal wrangle). If only the same could be said of social media, which continues to publish with impunity.
In exposing the lengths the duchess went to not only to write a letter to her father - but also to brief Omid Scobie and Carolyn Durand so they could write their flattering account of "Megxit", this case actually revealed just how much control Meghan had all along.
She told Oprah she had been "silenced" during her time in the monarchy. But what we have actually learned from this contentious cash cow of a case is that Meghan had a voice - and wasn't afraid to use it.
