In the High Court of Justice in London, Depp sued News Group Newspapers Ltd for libel over an article published in The Sun that claimed he had assaulted Heard.

Depp claimed Heard caused new damage to his reputation and career by stating that she had spoken up against "sexual violence" and "faced our culture's wrath"; that "two years ago, [she] became a public figure representing domestic abuse" and "felt the full force of our culture’s wrath for women who speak out"; and that she "had the rare vantage point of seeing, in real time, how institutions protect men accused of abuse".

Throughout the trial, Depp's legal team sought to disprove Heard's domestic abuse allegations and to demonstrate that she had been the instigator, rather than the victim, of intimate partner violence.

[30] Heard withdrew the restraining order, and she and Depp released a joint statement stating that their relationship was "intensely passionate and periodically volatile, but always bound by love.

"[27] Depp paid Heard a divorce settlement of $7 million, which she pledged to donate to the American Civil Liberties Union and the Children's Hospital Los Angeles.

"[9][27][30] In the article, Heard stated: "Then two years ago, I became a public figure representing domestic abuse, and I felt the full force of our culture's wrath for women who speak out.

[46] Matters from Heard's counterclaims pursued through the trial related to three statements made by Depp's lawyer, Adam Waldman, and published by the Daily Mail in April and June 2020.

[57] They further argued that the First Amendment protected Heard's right to express her views in the op-ed, which was mostly focused on a broad discussion of domestic violence and did not explicitly mention Depp's name.

[10][125] On July 1, 2022, Heard's legal team asked the court to set aside the verdict in favor of Depp in its entirety, dismiss the complaint or order a new trial.

The president of the Law & Crime network, Rachel Stockman, observed that the average daily viewership on their app was fifty times higher than before the trial.

"[54][140] Amanda Hess, a critic writing for The New York Times, opined that the broadcasting of the trial "is an invitation for the proceedings to be deliberately, even gleefully tailored to a viewer's whim", with internet platforms like TikTok and YouTube being "practically built to manipulate raw visual materials in the service of a personality cult, harassment campaign or branding opportunity.

"[141] On the other hand, Kellie Lynch, an associate professor of criminology and criminal justice at The University of Texas at San Antonio, praised the trial for "afford[ing] an opportunity to openly discuss the nuances of IPV that are often overlooked".

"[146] Katherine Denkinson of The Independent likened the social media backlash against Heard and her supporters during the trial to Gamergate, claiming that "the anti-Amber train has been expertly commandeered by the alt-right.

"[147] Journalist Amelia Tait of The Guardian wrote that Depp v. Heard had turned into "trial by TikTok", stating that the case had become "a source of comedy" on social media.

"[149] Columnist Katie Edwards, writing for The Independent and the i Newspaper, argued that the trial "exposed the fallacy of mutual abuse"[151] and claimed that "war criminals guilty of atrocities don't get as much vitriol" as Heard.

Scott argued that Depp's gender allowed the courtroom audience to "accept him as flawed, vulnerable, human, and to view her as monstrous," contending that "[c]elebrity and masculinity confer mutually reinforcing advantages.

"[159] In May 2022, the media non-profit The Citizens and Vice World News reported that the conservative website The Daily Wire had spent between $35,000 and $47,000 on Facebook and Instagram advertisements and have promoted "misleading information about the trial" and "anti-Amber Heard propaganda".

[162] The letter noted that the vilification and "online harassment" of Heard and her supporters were "unprecedented in both vitriol and scale," and attributed it to "disinformation, misogyny, biphobia, and a monetized social media environment where a woman's allegations of domestic violence and sexual assault were mocked for entertainment.

Paula Todd, a lawyer and media professor, raised the question of how many of the jury members would listen to the judge's instructions to avoid accessing online coverage.

[166] Law professor Mary Anne Franks said, "[I]t's crazy to think they are not going to be influenced by what's happening on social media," further noting that she encountered out-of-context, distorted depictions of the trial despite trying to avoid reading about the case.

Heard, the juror said, was considered the aggressor in the relationship by the majority of the jury, stating "If you have a battered wife or spouse situation, why would you buy the other person, the 'aggressor,' a knife?

Defamation suits by public figures are rarely successful in the United States, relevant case law being New York Times Co. v. Sullivan and the subsequent Curtis Publishing Co. v.

[175][176][177][178] New York Times reporter Jeremy W. Peters said that, in publishing allegations of abuse, "both ... women and the press assume the considerable risk that comes with antagonizing the rich, powerful and litigious".

[179] Dan Novack of The Atlantic argued that the verdict concluded a "fair trial" and was not a markedly different interpretation of the First Amendment, which he says remains "enormously protective of media reporting on credible accusations of sexual abuse.

[182] Shaknes, who had previously expressed surprise at the verdicts (saying, "It sort of took me a minute to figure out how they both could be awarded damages; how they both could be right"), said, "The best way to translate it is that I think the jury wanted to give Amber something.

"[182] Several commentators and feminist organizations expressed concern that the suit set a precedent that would dissuade survivors of abuse from speaking out in light of the threat of defamation litigation.

Mitra Ahouraian, a media attorney, said "I'm hoping that people recognize this as distinct from a lot of the #MeToo situations that we've seen, for example, like the Harvey Weinsteins of the world, This is not that.

"[21] Leading sexual assault lawyer Debra Katz described the trial as having unique celebrity, "dysfunction", and "craziness" but judged that the Depp v. Heard verdict was less "consequential" to #MeToo compared to Harvey Weinstein losing his appeal for his rape conviction the next day.

"[21] Alexandra Lysova, Associate Professor of Criminology at Simon Fraser University, argued that the verdict was, in fact, an expansion of #MeToo to male victims of intimate partner violence.

[193] The documentary, titled "Affaire Johnny Depp/Amber Heard", was released as the fifth episode of the third season of the La Fabrique du Mensonge docuseries broadcast by the network.