Originally Posted by Denville
That's absurd. Kate took off her top on a private property, miles from the road, to sunbathe or cange her swim suit...
I don't think that was Madame Maseau's view, but rather what the lawyers are trying to paint in order to say the damages were excessive. Their point is no longer that they violated her privacy. However, now it's if the damage to her justified. If we really get down to it, bringing Meghan's modelling shots into this in the first place is absurd. She has never posed topless in any of those photos. Fashion shoots are often provocative, but not going over that line for the most part. So it still doesn't jive with their argument that the damage should be less.