The trial drew much attention from supporters of either Depp or Heard as well as the broader public. At the start of the trial, several legal experts suggested that Depp had a smaller chance of winning than he did in the previous UK trial, citing the strong free speech protections in the US. 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." 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".
Social media coverage Data collected by
Newswhip from April 4 to May 16, 2022, indicated that news articles about the trial had generated more social-media interactions per article in the United States than all other significant news topics, including the
leaked Supreme Court draft opinion on abortion,
Elon Musk's acquisition of Twitter,
the inflation surge, and the
Russian invasion of Ukraine.
Twitter,
TikTok, and
Instagram users expressed opinions about the case or rallied against others doing the same. Clips of the trial were used to create memes, compilation or reaction videos, with multiple such videos
going viral. Those posting about the trial on social media were seen to mostly support Depp
BuzzFeed News reported that, between April 25 and 29, 2022, there were 1,667 posts uploaded to
Facebook using the hashtag #JusticeForJohnnyDepp, with over 7 million total interactions, i.e., likes and shares between them. In comparison, Heard only had 16 posts in support, with 10,415 interactions. Additionally, on TikTok, videos tagged with #JusticeForJohnnyDepp had over 5 billion combined views, while videos tagged with #JusticeForAmberHeard had only 21 million combined views as of April 29. 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." 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. Similar themes were noted by journalists at
BuzzFeed News, and
Vanity Fair.
Sunny Hundal of
The Independent, remarking upon social media reactions about Depp and Heard, opined that "There clearly isn't a gender divide here either. A lot of women have taken Johnny Depp's side, and a lot of vocal men are on Heard's side. [...] But it can also be true that social media coverage of this case has subtly played into traditional, sexist tropes about men and women." and claimed that "war criminals guilty of atrocities don't get as much vitriol" as Heard.
A.O. 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." Misinformation was widely shared, with researchers identifying bots artificially spreading content. For example, social media users falsely alleged that Heard copied quotes from the film
The Talented Mr. Ripley (1999) in her testimony. Widely shared falsehoods that Heard was using cocaine on the stand were also disproven. Shannon Keating, a culture writer and editor for
BuzzFeed News, wrote that the "social media frenzy around this case was clearly fueled by savvy PR", bots, and conservative media advertising, with the result that "lots of people have happily accepted the propaganda as sacrosanct." 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". In July 2022, Twitter analytics service
Bot Sentinel, which was hired and paid by Heard's team, published a report saying that Twitter trolls had engaged in "rampant abuse and widespread targeted harassment" of women who voiced support for Heard. In November 2022, more than 130 people and groups associated with women's rights and domestic-violence prevention—including
Gloria Steinem, the
National Organization for Women, the
National Women's Law Center, and
Equality Now—signed an open letter supporting Heard. 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." Legal commentators and Heard's attorneys suggested that, because the jury was not
sequestered, the social-media coverage of the trial may have had an influence on the final verdict. During the trial, the judge asked the jurors to refrain from reading about the case online, even instructing them to turn off their cell phones for its duration.
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. 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. Carl Tobias, a
University of Richmond School of Law professor, said "I don't envy the judge—or the jurors—because it's hard to protect them from [outside] influences," noting that such outside influences inhibit the justice system's ability to "give people a fair day in court."
Comments by juror Following the trial, a juror was interviewed by
Good Morning America. The juror stated that he found that Depp and Heard "were both abusive to each other" but that Heard's team failed to prove that Depp's abuse was physical. "They had their husband-wife arguments. They were both yelling at each other, I don't think that makes either of them right or wrong [...] But to rise to the level of what she was claiming, there wasn't enough or any evidence that really supported what she was saying". The juror opined that Heard's testimony was not "believable" because it "seemed like she was able to flip the switch on her emotions", while Depp "seemed a little more real in terms of how he responded to questions". 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?"
The Washington Post On June 2, 2022,
The Washington Post affixed an editor's note to Heard's 2018 op-ed to notify readers of the defamation suit and its outcome, reading, "On June 1, 2022, [...] a jury found Heard liable on
three counts. [...] The jury separately found that Depp, through his lawyer Adam Waldman, defamed Heard in
one of three counts in her countersuit."
Commentary on verdict Various columnists and legal experts reacted strongly to the verdict. 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. Butts.
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". 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. It is telling that Depp did not name the ACLU, which helped draft the op-ed at the center of the case, or
The Washington Post (which published it)."
University of Richmond School of Law Professor Carl Tobias said he was surprised by the verdict, and said it was "unusual" that both Depp and Heard won at least one count each. 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. An open letter signed by more than 130 women's-rights and domestic-violence-centered organizations and activists denounced the "rising misuse" of defamation lawsuits to silence people who report domestic and sexual abuse and stated that the verdict and the online response "indicate a fundamental misunderstanding of intimate partner and sexual violence and how survivors respond to it." Founder of
Refuge Erin Pizzey expressed her support to Johnny Depp, describing him as a survivor of domestic violence: "Johnny Depp is a hero. He is a precedent setter who has done the world a great favour. From now on, every judge and jury considering allegations of abuse will know of this case. They will know that an accused man has proven his innocence, and that men are abused too. Most importantly, they will know that a violent woman was the abuser, and that women can be violent—this realisation is the trial's legacy." Some commentators were skeptical of the trial's long-term effect, arguing that the trial's context was too unique to be indicative of #MeToo's reversal. 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. This is two people who were in a toxic relationship that were awful to one another and a jury decided that one of them was manipulating the situation." 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. Conversely,
A.O. Scott pointed out that, though Depp "accused Heard of doing terrible things to him in the course of their relationship and breakup, the lawsuit wasn't about those things. It was about words published under her name, none of which were 'Johnny Depp. Jack Houghton, digital editor of
Sky News Australia, deemed Vasquez's cross-examination to have shown the public Heard's lack of credibility while further considered the ruling of Waldman having defamed Heard to be "hardly a verdict that a cabal of sexist jurors would render".
Halim Dhanidina, a criminal defense attorney and retired judge, and Limor Mojdehiazad, a family law attorney, agreed that the manner of Heard's testimony may have influenced the jury's verdict against her, and also agreed that Depp's legal team was stronger than Heard's. Dhanidina opined that Depp's legal team brought forth more convincing witnesses and evidence, while Heard's testimony had inconsistencies, some of which were caused by her lawyers, who wrongly suggested that Heard used a specific makeup kit which had not yet been developed at the time of the alleged events. ==Media coverage==