Johnny Depp’s libel case proves all press is not good press

Choosing to defend your reputation — or to set the record straight — in a packed courtroom is rarely the best crisis communications strategy.

Take the torrid case of megastar Johnny Depp and his ex-wife Amber Heard, which will unfold in public on April 11 in Fairfax County, Va., court. Depp’s $50 million libel case against Heard stems from an op-ed she wrote for The Washington Post on domestic violence, which he believes harmed his reputation.

Depp’s past courtroom experience with this divisive issue should have told him to hit the brakes.

Depp lost a similar libel case last year against the UK-based Sun newspaper. During a media circus of a trial, the famous couple testified about sordid and hugely embarrassing details of their volatile marriage — details that would otherwise have been unknown to the public had the Hollywood A-lister not pressed forward with litigation. Depp initiated that lawsuit, sued for libel, and sparked a protracted legal saga that required both he and Heard to undergo withering questions and public discussion of deeply personal troubles in their private relationship.

Depp lost the case, essentially cementing the newspaper’s characterization of him — but he was also pilloried in scores of articles and news accounts that reprinted details of his failed marriage that would have remained private but for the lawsuit.

The decision to fight a PR battle in a courtroom is a classic case of cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Now Depp’s lurid tale is about to play out a second time, right here in the U.S.

Stars who choose to litigate their cases in court can actually end up irreparably harming their reputations as an unintended consequence.

The field of crisis PR — a high-stakes form of communications that sits somewhere between an art and a science — requires practitioners to advise clients on courses of action that take into account the potential costs and benefits of action — and inaction.

One definitely does not want to make a bad situation even worse.

Depp apparently felt he needed to sue his ex-wife to defend his reputation. Perhaps he felt that leaving her accusations unchallenged would ultimately cause him to lose out on future acting opportunities. But it’s unlikely Depp would have hurt for work had he turned the other cheek. He has remained a bankable star for decades, a reliable moneymaker for Hollywood studios and an A-list actor with a dizzying array of iconic roles and deeply respected for his talent.

Depp could have chosen to ignore the jabs in the media; instead, he decided to fight back in court, stirring up an enormous amount of negative news coverage that has actually tarnished his brand tremendously. 

Regardless whether we hear anything new in court next week, the net impact will almost certainly be unflattering and more tabloid fodder.

It has often been said that “all press is good press,” but so far, Depp’s foray into court has proved the absurdity of that old saw.

Offended Hollywood stars inclined to pursue legal recourse would do well to remember that the bar for winning a libel case is very high — you must essentially show that an article was published with malice using information known to be untrue, with the intention of causing harm.

From a reputational standpoint, sometimes defending your reputation and honor is better accomplished in the court of public opinion than a court of law. And often, there’s much to be said for doing nothing at all.

Evan Nierman is CEO of crisis PR firm Red Banyan and author of “Crisis Averted: PR Strategies to Protect Your Reputation and the Bottom Line.”