General Counsel, P.C.

  • Practice Areas
    • Business Law
      • Business Breakups in Virginia
      • Contract Management
      • Minority Shareholder Protections
      • Emerging Companies
      • Entity Formation
      • Foreign Companies Entering U.S. Market
      • Real Estate and Leases
      • Starting a Business, Licensing & Compliance
      • Registered Agent Services
      • Succession Planning for Business Owners
      • Tax Law Matters
      • Charitable Solicitation Practice Group
      • Intellectual Property
        • Trade Secrets
        • Copyright
        • Trademark
    • Employment Law
      • Employment Documentation
        • Building Your Cornerstone
        • Employee Document Vault
        • Employee Handbook Tuneup Services
        • Guidelines for Hiring or Firing Employees
        • Separation Agreements
      • Drug Testing
        • Drug Testing Your Workforce – Best Practices
        • Laws Affecting Drug Testing Policies
      • Regulatory Issues
        • VA, MD, DC, Rights & Obligations
        • Age Discrimination
        • Americans with Disabilities Act
        • At-Will Employment
        • Fair Labor Standards Act
        • Family Medical Leave Act
        • Pregnancy Discrimination Act
        • Title VII
      • Non-Competition Agreements
        • District of Columbia
        • Maryland
        • Virginia
      • For Employers of Uniformed Services Members
      • Employer Considerations For Government Contractors
      • For Non-Profits
    • Family Law
      • Divorce
        • Collaborative Divorce
        • Grounds for Divorce
          • Fourth Level Menu Sample
        • High Net Divorce
        • Same Sex Divorce
        • Military Divorce
        • Uncontested Divorce
        • Litigation vs. Alternative Dispute Resolution in Divorce
        • Post-Divorce Enforcement and Appeals
        • Alimony and Spousal Support
        • Child Custody
        • Child Support
        • Filing for Divorce in Virginia
        • Divorce Security Clearance
      • Property Division
      • Alimony and Spousal Support
      • Child Support
      • Child Custody and Visitation
      • Marital Agreements
      • International Family Law
      • Domestic Violence and Protective Orders
      • Co-Parenting in Virginia
    • Government Contracts
      • Bid Protests
      • Government Contract Claims and Appeals
      • Getting Government Contracts: Small Business Certification Services
        • 8(a) Small Business
        • HUBZone Small Business
        • SDVOSB Program
        • Veteran-Owned Small Business
        • Women-Owned Small Business
    • Litigation
      • Arbitration, Mediation & Alternative Dispute Resolution Attorneys
      • Commercial & Business Litigation
      • Defamation
      • Employment Disputes
      • Government Contracting Disputes
      • Intellectual Property Disputes
      • Local Counsel
      • Pre-Litigation
    • Estate Planning
      • Estate Planning FAQs
      • Trusts
      • Wills
      • Families With Children
      • Business Succession Planning
      • Asset Protection Planning
      • Celebrity Estate Planning Mistakes
      • Legal Business Contingency Plans
      • Become a Referral Partner
    • Probate Administration
      • Probate is Complex – FAQ and Answers
      • Trust & Estate Litigation
  • About Us
    • Overview
    • Biographies
      • Heba K. Carter
      • Grace Clagett
      • Elizabeth Hart
      • David Kaye
      • Alexis Ruark
    • Our Founder
    • How We Help
  • Resources
    • Practical Counsel Blog
    • Bid Protest Weekly
    • VetWorking
    • Video Library
    • Webinars
    • Quotes in The News
    • GCPC First Generation Law Student Scholarship
  • Testimonials
  • Contact
  • Make Payments
703-556-0411

Johnny Depp helps to provide Guidance on What Defamatory Statements are “Actionable” in Virginia

Wednesday, 29 April 2020 / Published in Defamation, Litigation

Johnny Depp helps to provide Guidance on What Defamatory Statements are “Actionable” in Virginia

Johnny Depp actionable defamation claims

John Depp, commonly known as “Johnny Depp,” filed suit against his ex-wife, Amber Heard, claiming defamation based on four statements made in Heard’s op-ed in the Washington Post in December 2018.  The Fairfax County Circuit Court considered his defamation claims and determined which alleged defamatory statements were “actionable” providing valuable guidance.  For more information on defamation law, visit General Counsel, P.C.’s Defamation Litigation practice area page.

Depp v. Heard

John Depp, commonly known as “Johnny Depp,” filed suit against his ex-wife, Amber Heard, claiming defamation based on four statements made in Heard’s op-ed in the Washington Post in December 2018. The article discussed how Heard became a public figure “representing domestic abuse,” what she experienced after attaining that status, and what she believed could be done to “build institutions protective of women.” Depp claimed the op-ed was actually about “Heard’s victimization” after accusing Depp of domestic abuse in 2016 and based his defamation claims on the following four statements: “Amber Heard: I spoke up against sexual violence—and faced our culture’s wrath. That has to change;” “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;” “I had the rare vantage point of seeing, in real time, how institutions protect men accused of abuse;” and “I write this as a woman who had to change my phone number weekly because I was getting death threats. For months, I rarely left my apartment, and when I did, I was pursued by camera drones and photographers on foot, on motorcycles and in cars. Tabloid outlets that posted pictures of me spun them in a negative light. I felt as though I was on trial in the court of public opinion—and my life and livelihood depended on myriad judgements far beyond my control.”

To make a successful defamation claim, a plaintiff must establish: (1) publication of (2) an actionable statement with (3) the requisite intent. For a statement to be actionable, it must be “false and defamatory.” A statement is defamatory if it “tends to injure one’s reputation in the common estimation of mankind.” Statements of opinion can’t be “false,” and, thus, can’t be actionable. In light of that, editorials or op-eds are typically not actionable, since they are in a section usually considered to be personal viewpoints. However, Virginia courts have found that “a defamatory charge may be made by inference, implication, or insinuation” and may be made indirectly.

The court found the first three statements to be actionable, since they convey the alleged defamatory message that Depp abused Heard, even though the article did not mention Depp by name. The court also considered events surrounding Depp and Heard’s divorce, including Heard’s multiple allegations of domestic violence,” which accompanied her statements. Additionally, the court found that the implication that Depp abused Heard “is defamation per se” since it imputes to Depp “the commission of some criminal offense involving moral turpitude, for which the party, if the charge is true, may be indicted and punished.” The court concluded that since the statements could reasonably be seen to convey an alleged defamatory meaning—that Depp abused Heard—and the meaning is defamatory per se, the statements could proceed beyond demurrer and Depp could proceed with his claims.

The court determined the last statement wasn’t actionable, because it “lacks any factual underpinning” that Depp abused Heard. Specifically, the court found that the statement was “too opinion-laden,” represented Heard’s own perspective, and lacked any implicit reference to alleged abuse by Depp. Thus, the court determined there was no defamatory charge and wasn’t actionable.

What Does Depp v. Heard Mean for Defamation Claims?

Here, the court offered guidance on what allegedly defamatory statements are considered “actionable” and may be instructive for other, similar cases. This case also shines light on Virginia’s relaxed defamation standard. The court here found three of four statements actionable, even though Depp wasn’t mentioned by name, since the court will find statements actionable, even if the charge is only made by inference, implication, or insinuation. The court found these statements to be actionable, since they convey the alleged defamatory message that Depp abused Heard. All three statements, at least indirectly, referenced alleged abuse by Depp, when viewed with the events surrounding the statement. Conversely, the last statement, which the court found wasn’t actionable, made no reference to any alleged abuse, even indirectly, and instead was just Heard’s perspective of her life after becoming a “public figure.” Based on this ruling, it is apparent that not all statements related to an allegedly defamatory statement will be actionable. The statement must contain a defamatory message which will be conveyed to the recipient. 

If you need more guidance or information on litigation and defamation, contact General Counsel, P.C. today at 703-991-7973.

  • Tweet
Tagged under: Defamation, Johnny Depp

TOP ARTICLE CATEGORIES

  • BUSINESS

  • LABOR & EMPLOYMENT

  • FAMILY LAW

  • GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS

  • LITIGATION

Subscribe to Blogs and Updates

Name
Areas of Interest:
The use of the Internet or this form for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through this form.

Disclaimer | Privacy Policy

Consent(Required)

Address:

1320 Old Chain Bridge Road, #440
McLean, VA 22101

Hours of Operation:

Mon – Fri, 8AM – 5PM

Phone Number:

+1 703-556-0411


  • HOME
  • ABOUT US
  • PRIVACY POLICY
  • DISCLAIMER
  • SITEMAP
  • CONTACT US
  • MAKE A PAYMENT

General Counsel, P.C. BBB Business Review

© 2025 General Counsel, P.C. | Website Design & Development by High Level Thinkers

TOP