Johnny Depp won his historic defamation case against his ex-wife Amber Heard after a seven-person jury found she defamed him in her 2018 Washington Post op-ed essay about domestic abuse. The dramatic six-week trial captured the world’s attention, with salacious, conflicting stories told by both Depp and Heard.

When Depp won the case, Heard was ordered to pay him $10.35 million in damages.

But beyond the explosive accusations and Hollywood star drama, the legalities of how actual malice cases are impacted by the cancel culture, #MeToo movement, and new laws are fraught with legal issues and strategies.

Cancel culture is when groups of people, often anonymously, boycott a person for their words or behavior that is deemed sexist, racist, or culturally harmful. Being canceled is not a legal matter but is instead a shared online event that leads to more than a lack of popularity for its public figures. Persons like Depp could lose their reputation, their entire body of work once loved by fans, and their livelihood.

Depp lost his libel case in England against Amber Heard last year, due to the different set of rules the UK applies to such cases. In England, his loss to Heard may be due to his case being decided by a judge versus his case in the US heard by a jury. Another major factor impacting the outcome of the Depp/Heard case in England versus the US is that in England, the trial was not televised or shared on the internet, whereas in the US it became a viral event published daily in videos and articles.

Beyond the Depp/Heard cases, the long list of canceled celebrities includes figures such as J.K. Rowling, Chris Noth, Chrissy Teigen, Ellen Degeneres, R. Kelly, and many, many more. Depp is the first and most prominent figure to win his defamation suit successfully against his ex-wife.

In the US, there are legal defamation protections for people who have become victims to cancel culture, if appropriate, but these laws also face new laws that protect people who are considered whistleblowers, such as members of the #MeToo movement.

In 1964, in the New York Times v. Sullivan case, the Supreme Court ruled that US government officials can win defamation suites only if they can prove “actual malice,” referring to knowingly false or reckless accusations that could be proven to be made on purpose. This law eventually included public figures, such as Depp today.

The defamation laws mandate that the burden of proof in such a suit is on the filer, who must prove in court that the allegations against him or her have caused economic, emotional or social damage. Only about ten percent of all such cases result in the plaintiff winning.

Depp is not the first public figure to win a defamation case, especially since celebrities have alleged false claims against the paparazzi or others. However, he is the most prominent and only celebrity to win a defamation suit against an ex-wife due to domestic violence allegations.

Beyond the traditional defamation laws, Anti-SLAPP (“Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation”) laws were recently created to stop anyone, including powerful public figures, from using the threat of a meritless lawsuit to stop people from exercising their First Amendment rights.

Successful usage of Anti-SLAPP motions includes not only filing lawsuits but also protecting citizens in demonstrations, criticizing a government agency, or speaking freely at a public meeting. But in cases such as Depp’s, these laws can be critical to the outcome of the suit.

In a startling turn of events, the state where Depp’s lawsuit was heard was most likely a key piece as to why the suit ever happened in the first place.

Depp’s lawsuit was in Virginia, one of the numerous states that do not have strong Anti-SLAPP laws. Defendants such as Heard often use Anti-SLAPP laws to avoid long, expensive frivolous lawsuits and make the plaintiff prove the legitimacy of their suit. Depp’s attorneys, likely due to a specific strategy seeking a weak Anti-SLAPP law state,

chose Virginia for the suit, knowing their Anti-SLAPP laws are weak.

If Depp, for example, had brought his suit to California, things might have played out differently, since the strong laws there may not have even allowed Depp’s case to move forward, as Heard’s rights would have been stronger. California has a powerful Anti-SLAPP law compared to Virginia, and Heard’s attorneys attempted to move the case to California unsuccessfully.

Numerous plaintiffs such as many in the #MeToo movement may be impacted by weak Anti-SLAPP laws, and calls are now being made to create a similar federal law.