After a six-week trial that lit up the internet, a jury has found Amber Heard defamed her ex-husband Johnny Depp by referring to herself as "a public figure representing domestic abuse" in a 2018 opinion piece.
Seven jurors at Virginia's Fairfax County Circuit Court found overwhelmingly in Mr Depp's favour, awarding him $US15 million in combined damages to offset the impact of the Washington Post article.
Mr Depp has declared victory, saying the decision has given him his "life back".
Ms Heard, who will receive $US2 million in compensatory damages, has described it as a "setback" for women.
During the trial, both parties aired a tangle of abuse allegations, with each arguing the ongoing legal stoush had damaged their respective careers.
The jury, however, was unanimous in its verdict.
How did the jury decide?
The jury faced the complicated task of determining if several statements published in the media were defamatory to either Mr Depp or Ms Heard.
They weighed more than 100 hours of often emotional testimony against documentary evidence including photos, audio recordings and videos.
Mr Depp sued Ms Heard for $US50 million, while she countersued for $US100 million after his lawyer described her allegations of physical and emotional abuse as "a hoax" to journalists.
The jurors had a series of questions to answer, including whether statements made by either side were false and made with "actual malice" — the threshold required to prove a form of defamation known as libel.
"Actual malice" means a person knowingly made a false statement or acted with reckless disregard for the truth.
The jury found in favour of Mr Depp on all elements of his claim, which related to several lines in Ms Heard's op-ed, titled: "I spoke up against sexual violence — and faced our culture's wrath. That has to change."
He was awarded $US10 million in damages to compensate him, including for loss of income, and $US5 million in punitive damages, which are intended to punish Ms Heard.
However, under Virginia law, punitive damages cannot exceed $US350,000, meaning he will get a total of $US10.35 million.
Only one aspect of Ms Heard's counterclaim — that she was defamed when Mr Depp's lawyer said she deliberately "roughed" up their apartment before calling the police — was ruled defamatory.
She was awarded $US2 million in compensatory damages, and nothing in punitive damages.
Ms Heard cannot bring a fresh claim for defamation based on anything that was alleged in the lawsuit because of procedural rules designed to stop people from retrying the same case.
She could potentially appeal on specific grounds, such as the amount or breakdown of damages, or a judicial irregularity.
Where does this leave both actors?
Mr Depp was not in court for the verdict, having made a surprise appearance in the UK with musician Jeff Beck in the days before it was delivered.
"The jury gave me my life back. I am truly humbled," he said in a statement afterwards.
Ms Heard said the disappointment she felt in the outcome was "beyond words" but offered the following:
"I'm heartbroken that the mountain of evidence still was not enough to stand up to the disproportionate power, influence, and sway of my ex-husband.
"It sets back the idea that violence against women is to be taken seriously."
"I'm even more disappointed with what this verdict means for other women. It is a setback.
Both actors had accused the other of damaging their careers: Mr Depp was replaced in the Fantastic Beasts film franchise and an upcoming Pirates of the Caribbean sequel was paused.
Ms Heard argued her role in Aquaman 2 was significantly scaled back.
A Change.org petition calling for the actor to be dropped from the film entirely has already amassed millions of signatures.
John Culhane, a professor of law at Widener University Delaware Law School, said Mr Depp's win might not deliver an instant fix for the actor's career.
"I don't necessarily think it's going to do the reputation repair that he was hoping for, just because the whole thing has been such a circus," he said.
Ms Heard's career was even less likely to rebound, Mr Culhane said.
"Her name is not as big as his name," he said.
"And, so, it may be easier for people that are considering who to hire for a role to sort of pass her over."
Did the court of public opinion already decide?
In some ways, it felt to many like there were two trials taking place at once: one inside the courtroom and one on social media.
The judge presiding over the case warned she would not tolerate any "outbursts" as the verdict was read out, but cheers were heard from the Depp fans gathered outside.
Many had attended for weeks, often wearing costumes inspired by popular Depp characters.
In anticipation of the announcement, the hashtag #JusticeforJohnnyDepp again began trending on Twitter.
On TikTok, the same hashtag now has billions of views, while a counter hashtag, #JusticeforAmberHeard, has millions fewer, with many of the videos still skewed in Mr Depp's favour.
One of Mr Depp's lawyers, Ben Chew, said he was "most pleased that the trial has resonated for so many people in the public who value truth and justice".
Some experts voiced concerns the public nature of the proceedings, which were live streamed, could have a chilling effect on survivors of domestic abuse.
Ms Heard has already complained of death threats against her and her one-year-old daughter prior to the trial beginning.
"If somebody is sufficiently determined and, you know, malevolent, to be honest, they can really just shred somebody on social media," Mr Culhane said.
"And the bigger the star … the more resources they have to do that.
"It is a problem, not just in the context of defamation but in the context of public safety and private safety."
