Celebrity lawsuits and the court of public opinion: high risk, high reward?

Depp v News Group Newspapers Ltd

“Despite how it appeared, the UK case wasn’t between Johnny Depp and Amber Heard; Depp was suing The Sun. However, because the publication focused on Depp’s behaviour during his marriage to Heard, she was called as a witness.

“This case is a perfect demonstration of the risk of pursuing libel claims in the UK. Libel claims aren’t big ‘money makers’ in the UK but they are often the only option for clients where the allegations are so egregious or where the harm caused to a reputation is so severe that only a court judgment can vindicate the individual’s or company’s reputation. However, the publicity and interest generated by the case alone often means that significantly more people end up knowing about the allegations that caused the concern in the first place.

“High profile cases are a risk that many clients should probably only take if the issues at play are so fundamental that they cannot realistically be left unchallenged. For Depp, the judge found that The Sun’s article was substantially true, and Depp lost his case.  

“What’s interesting is that after Depp lost against The Sun in the UK, his US case against Amber Heard came to trial - but this time in front of a jury (the Defamation Act 2013 largely did away with jury trials in the UK).

“This was noteworthy for a number of reasons:

• By the time the US trial started, Depp had already lost a case which focused on similar allegations (here, The Sun alleged Depp was “a wife beater”; in the States, Heard alleged she was the victim of domestic abuse);
• Because in the United States, the protections given to free speech rights are very strong;
• Because it is unusual for claims dealing with very similar issues and evidence to be tried in different jurisdictions and to reach different conclusions, which is what happened here.

“The two outcomes demonstrate the unpredictable nature of litigation and perhaps why high-profile trials are few and far between. You don't usually get to have it both ways, unless of course you're Johnny Depp."

Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni

“As with Depp/Heard case, the ongoing litigation between Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni is another example of an extremely high profile case being played out before the public and in the press. Both sides’ cases have been extensively covered in the media, and it appears that there has been briefing behind the scenes to get the different sides of the story across - as well as Baldoni launching a website detailing his claim against Lively with allegedly supporting evidence.

“This is particularly striking because of the fact that, unlike the general position in the UK, defamation trials in the United States are heard before a jury and the amount of information already disclosed, public speculation generated, and further allegations published means that there is a vast amount of detail already in the public domain about this particular case.

“I suspect it will be very difficult to find a juror who has not at least heard about the case, and it is likely that they will already have been exposed to much of the information that has been published to date, with the inevitable risk of prejudicing their perception of events and potentially leading to a pre-conceived outcome. It is an important difference between libel cases here and in the US. This type of jury trial in the UK was largely done away with by the Defamation Act 2013. The coverage has been so extensive to date that the Judge at the pre-trial hearing said he may be forced to move the trial date forward to avoid the risk of prejudice.

“Whatever happens, it will be very interesting to watch as it develops but it is important to bear in mind that this case deals with serious and important allegations that ought to be thoroughly scrutinised so that the right, and just, outcome is reached.”

An extract of Jessica’s comments was published in HELLO! Magazine, 23 May 2025.