About the johnny Depp-Amber Heard case, we explain defamation laws in the UK and US and how social media played a role in turning the verdict in favor of the "Pirates" star. Last week a jury ruled in the high-profile defamation case between "Aquaman" star Amber Heard and "Pirates of the Caribbean" star johnny Depp. johnny depp sued Amber Heard over an article in The Washington Post in which Heard had said that johnny depp had committed domestic violence.

Depp II v Amber Laura Hurd in Fairfax County Circuit court found that 36-year-old Heard had defamed 58-year-old Depp when he described himself as a 'domestic violence victim' was. This is a case that has been in the headlines of the united states for several weeks.

The jury has asked Depp to pay a total of $15 million. Of this, $10 million will be given as compensation and $5 million in punitive damages. However, punitive damages are reduced to $350,000 due to the legal limit under virginia law. He would actually have to pay $10.35 million in damages.

The jury also found that one of Depp's lawyers had defamed Heard. He was ordered to pay 2 million in compensatory damages. The trial created a lot of hue and cry on social media and was aired on TV. After this Depp received huge public support and Hurd was publicly ridiculed.

The outcome of this case was quite different from that of a defamation suit brought against british tabloid The Sun. Less than two years ago, in 2020, Depp sued him for calling him a 'wife-beater' in an article, and he lost the case. Unlike the US trial in Britain, the case was heard and decided by a single judge.

What led to the different results of these two defamation cases.

Why Depp lost in the UK but won in the US?

Depp lost the case in the UK, despite the fact that defamation law there is generally considered to be favorable to the plaintiffs, even applying to allegations of libel tourism. Liable tourism is actually the trend where people make defamation claims in a country, because the chances of winning there are very high. Apart from this, the level of free speech protection in the UK is not the same as in the US.

The difference between the laws of the two countries is that in the US the burden of presenting evidence is on the person filing the defamation claim, but in the UK the burden is on the accused, which complicates the case.

In the UK, sun was responsible for presenting evidence in Depp's case, but in the US, Depp had to convince the jury that Heard not only defamed him but did so out of malice. In other words, in the UK the plaintiff has to show that a false and defamatory statement was made, but in the US they have to prove how they were defamed.

But what really turned the verdict in Depp's favor in America was the presence of a jury. Unlike a UK judge, his case was heard by a seven-member jury. Experts have shed light on how Depp used a strategy called 'deny, assault and reverse victim and perpetrator' or 'Darvo', a common defense strategy in sexual assault and domestic violence cases.

Experts say this strategy is 'very, very effective in cases before a jury'. However, 'lawyers and judges do not accept it so easily' because they are trained to see the evidence. In this case, Depp's lawyers effectively used tactics, turning him into a victim and Heard as an abuser. 

The same strategy was applied to social media too – the hashtag #justiceforjohnnydepp garnered 19 billion views on TikTok and trended for weeks on Twitter. This led to public attention to the trial—polls reportedly showed Americans showed more interest in courtroom drama than in the ongoing war in ukraine or the US supreme Court's landmark decision on abortion. However, the jurors were instructed not to read anything online about the case. But they were not isolated and were allowed to keep their phones.