The Daily Mail published accurate, redacted photos showing Katie Hill engaging in drug use and sexual behavior with a campaign aide.
Katie Hill sued on the grounds that this isn't newsworthy. And they should have redacted more than they did.
There's a reason Katie Hill is the one paying the other side's attorney fees. This was an incredibly frivolous lawsuit.
Aside from her being a politician as other comments say.
> 18. (a) A Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner may not engage in a sexual relationship with any employee of the House who works under the supervision of the Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner, or who is an employee of a committee on which the Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner serves. This paragraph does not apply with respect to any relationship between two people who are married to each other.
Of this, Speaker Pelosi said "[Hill made] some errors in judgment that made her continued service as a Member untenable. We must ensure a climate of integrity and dignity in the Congress, and in all workplaces."
In this case, there was at least some other motive (exposing an elected public official engaging in an unethical/inappropriate/potentially abusive* relationship with one of her staffers).
*: I don’t know whether the relationship was actually abusive
Publishing a persons nude photos without permission is a hateful act.