As widely reported, Johnny Depp has won his defamation US lawsuit against Amber Heard, his former wife. The defamation case was held before a Virginia jury and they found that Heard defamed Depp in a media article where she claimed that he had abused her over the course of their relationship and marriage. See NBC media report here. Heard’s media article was published in 2018 in The Washington Post. Depp had sought $50 million in damages for Heard’s defamation, but the jury awarded him only $14 million.

What are Defamation, Slander and Libel?

Defamation is the overarching term that means a false statement has been published against a person or business that has caused injury. Slander and libel fall under the category of defamation and involve two types of publication:

• Libel — written publication
• Slander — verbal publication

So, in the Depp-Heard case, to be precise, Heard was accused and found to have committed libel. In the age of the internet, defamation is a bit murky. Internet defamation often involves the written word, so it is libel. But, internet defamation is often done via videos like Youtube and Tik-Tok. So, in those cases, the internet defamation may be slander (oral or verbal publication). But, then again, given the ease and commonness of video translations, such might also be libel. If you think you have suffered any sort of defamation, be it libel or slander, you will need to retain experienced internet defamation attorneys like the ones at Revision Legal.

How Do You Prove Defamation, Slander, and Libel?

This Fox News media report about the Depp-Heard trial provides some easy to understand answers. It should be noted that defamation law is slightly different from state to state in the United States. Thus, if you have a defamation case or are defending a case, you will need to hire local attorneys knowledgeable in your state’s defamation laws. That being said, there are some general legal requirements. As reported in the Fox News article, what must be proven is the following:

• A false statement presented as fact — not a statement of opinion or something that would be deemed ridiculous
• Publication or communication — a false statement is only actionable in a lawsuit if the false statement was made to someone or otherwise published either in writing (libel) or verbally (slander)
• Knowledge — the person saying untrue things must know — or reasonably should know — that they are making untrue statements
• Damages or harm — the false statement must also do some harm to the victim; loss of earnings or reputational damages can be sufficient for filing a lawsuit; note that some false statements are deemed, automatically, to result in damages or harm; these are considered per se defamatory statements; an example would be a false statement that someone committed a crime
• Actual malice — this legal element only applies to “famous” persons (such as Depp); here, it must be proven that the person making the false statement had knowledge that the statement was absolutely false and he or she published the statement with a “reckless disregard for the truth”
• Identification — the person or business being defamed must be identifiable to those hearing or reading the false statement; interestingly enough, Heard’s 2018 Washington Post article did not mention Depp by name; but, by its verdict, the jury believed that only Depp could be the person mentioned in the article

Depp won his case because he was able to prove all of these legal elements to the jury.

Contact Revision Legal

If you need an experienced team of internet defamation attorneys, call Revision Legal at 231-714-0100. We are internet and social media influence attorneys with proven experience with IP protection, contract law and complex litigation. We are lawyers specializing in internet law.

Public Figures and the Actual Malice Standard

The Depp-Heard trial drew widespread attention in part because it involved two public figures litigating defamation claims against each other. Under New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), a public figure who brings a defamation claim must prove not only the standard elements but also that the defendant acted with ‘actual malice’—that is, with knowledge that the statement was false or with reckless disregard for its truth or falsity. This is a substantially higher bar than what a private individual must meet.

In the Depp-Heard case, both parties qualified as public figures given their celebrity status. The jury’s verdict reflects a finding of sufficient evidence of actual malice on Heard’s part—meaning the jury concluded she either knew her statements were false or recklessly disregarded their falsity when publishing the 2018 Washington Post op-ed. This element is notoriously difficult to prove because it requires examining the defendant’s state of mind, typically through circumstantial evidence like internal communications, prior statements, and the overall context of the publication.

Opinion vs. Fact: A Critical Defamation Defense

One of the most significant legal defenses in defamation cases is that the statement at issue was an expression of opinion rather than a statement of fact. The First Amendment protects pure opinion. In Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1 (1990), the Supreme Court held that there is no wholesale ‘opinion privilege’ but that statements must be evaluated based on whether a reasonable reader would understand the statement as conveying an objectively verifiable fact.

In the Depp-Heard case, Heard’s legal team argued that her op-ed contained protected opinion and advocacy speech regarding domestic abuse survivors generally. Depp’s team countered that specific factual representations in the article were false and defamatory. The jury sided with Depp, finding that identifiable statements crossed the line from protected opinion into provably false assertions of fact. This line-drawing exercise is one of the most contested issues in defamation litigation.

Damages: What Can Be Recovered in a Defamation Case

Damages in defamation cases fall into several categories. Actual (compensatory) damages require the plaintiff to prove specific economic harm—lost income, lost business opportunities, and similar quantifiable losses. General damages compensate for reputational injury, emotional distress, and humiliation. Presumed damages were traditionally available in libel cases without specific proof of harm, but the Supreme Court substantially limited this doctrine in Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (1974).

Punitive damages—intended to punish and deter egregious conduct—are available but require proof of actual malice. In the Depp-Heard case, the jury awarded Depp $10 million in compensatory damages and $5 million in punitive damages, though the punitive award was reduced to $350,000 under Virginia’s statutory cap. Heard received $2 million on her counterclaim. The disparity reflected the jury’s assessment of comparative credibility and the severity of the statements at issue.

Internet Defamation: Social Media, Platforms, and Section 230

The Depp-Heard case played out in real time on social media, raising important questions about internet defamation law. Under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, 47 U.S.C. § 230, internet platforms are generally immune from liability for content posted by third-party users. This means that individual posters—not platforms like Twitter or TikTok—bear legal responsibility for defamatory statements.

Internet defamation cases present unique challenges. False statements can spread virally before correction is possible. Identifying anonymous online defamers often requires subpoenas to platforms. Jurisdictional questions arise when defendants and platforms span different states or countries. Despite these complexities, defamation law fully applies to online speech, and individuals who make false factual statements online face the same liability as traditional publishers.

What to Do If You Have Been Defamed

If you believe you have been defamed—in a traditional publication or online—document and preserve the defamatory content immediately. Screenshots with timestamps, URLs, and archived copies are all valuable evidence. Then consult an experienced defamation attorney before taking any public action, because a poorly timed demand letter or public response can amplify the harm rather than remediate it.

Revision Legal’s internet defamation attorneys have experience identifying defamatory content, sending effective takedown demands, and prosecuting defamation claims in court when necessary. If your reputation has been harmed by false statements—online or off—contact us today.