It's the trial that has everybody talking.

Actor Johnny Depp is suing his ex-wife Amber Heard for libel over a 2018 op-ed piece she wrote in The Washington Post about her being a victim of domestic abuse.

The piece does not name Depp, but his attorneys say the implications are defamatory, and he claims her allegations cost him his career, as Disney dropped him from the "Pirates of the Caribbean" franchise just days after the article was published.

Depp concluded his testimony in the $50 million defamation lawsuit against Heard.

He said he filed the lawsuit against Heard because it was his best chance to reclaim his reputation.

While on the witness stand, Depp spoke about Heard demeaning him and sometimes slapping or shoving him.

She has accused him of physically and sexually assaulting her on multiple occasions.

Depp calls those accusations "false and heinous."

Heard said the actor first assaulted her in 2013 when he slapped her for making fun of his "Wino Forever" tattoo.

Depp told jurors in a Fairfax, Virginia, courtroom about his rough childhood, his rise to fame, and what his relationship with Heard was like after meeting her in 2011.

The couple went on to get married in 2015, only to divorce a year later.

Although social media says he has already won, will the jury side with him?

Criminal Defense and Entertainment Attorney, Darryl Cohen, talks to Newsy and explains what to expect when Heard takes the stand next week as the first witness for her defense.  

Newsy is the nation’s only free 24/7 national news network. You can find Newsy using your TV’s digital antenna or stream for free. See all the ways you can watch Newsy here: https://bit.ly/Newsy1

Related video above: Court TV correspondent on courtroom atmosphere in Depp-Heard trial

A man purporting to be a member of the seven-person jury that deliberated in the Johnny Depp vs. Amber Heard trial made a series of posts on TikTok last week about what he claimed were his insights from the high-profile trial that captivated the world.

While some social media sleuths were quick to cast doubt on his account — including closely examining the pixelated image of what he claimed was juror paperwork he posted as alleged proof of his service — the man's eight videos posted to TikTok last Thursday and Friday generated much attention. Combined, the posts garnered more than 2 million views and were recirculated on YouTube and Instagram by large-scale content creators reaching exponentially more people before he deactivated the account sometime Friday evening after CNN Business' attempt to seek comment. TikTok did not respond to a request for comment.

The Daily Mail circulated his remarks as an "exclusive," while also noting in the headline how little it knew about him: "Man claiming to be JUROR in Depp-Heard trial says moment Amber lied about donating divorce settlement sunk her case and that jury believed Johnny was physically abusive — but not the instigator." Daily Mail did not respond to a request for comment. Several other outlets similarly went forward with the story.

But the man behind the account isn't a resident of Virginia where the trial took place ---- and he did not, in fact, serve on the jury. In a text message Sunday, the man admitted it "was just a prank."

It is the latest development in how the defamation trial involving the two celebrities has been seized upon by content creators and influencers on TikTok, which spawned news cycles, revealed insight into the consciousness of users, and shone a light on what content is rewarded on social media.

According to Casey Fiesler, an assistant professor of information science at University of Colorado Boulder and a TikToker, TikTok tends to promote content that is controversial in some ways, or that the platform's algorithm has determined people want to see. Because the man pretending to have been a juror in the case said he believed Depp's story over Heard's, it reinforced beliefs held by Depp's supporters.

"People believe the things that they want to believe, absolutely," said Fiesler.

Posting under an account name "seekinginfinite," the faux juror stated in a TikTok that he wanted to remain anonymous for the time being but would "consider confirming my identity" in the future. His videos, in which he did not show his face, largely echoed common criticisms and observations made by social media creators throughout the course of the trial. He claimed that he grew "extremely uncomfortable" with Heard's eye contact with him so much so that he stopped looking at her while she testified. (Heard's frequent eye contact with the jury was one major topic of discussion during her time on the stand.) He claimed to have been a fan of Depp's lawyer, Camille Vasquez, who became such an internet sensation that one TikToker said she gave herself a tattoo of Vasquez.

"I just think she was really sharp and knew what she was doing and did it with purpose and integrity," said @seekinginfinite in one of the TikTok posts, responding to another user's question about what the jury thought of Vasquez. "All the business stuff aside, she wasn't too bad on the eyes."

Importantly, the TikToker made clear that he didn't believe Heard, validating a viewpoint that many spent weeks expressing on the platform: "Everything she was saying came off like [expletive]," he said in his original post, calling Heard a "crazy woman."

The man is in his late 20s and works as a cinematographer. He appears to have been in Hawaii during deliberations and post-verdict, based on Instagram posts. When asked Friday whether the purported juror badge posted by the TikToker user could plausibly be legitimate, a spokesperson for Fairfax County's Department of Public Affairs said it could not confirm based on the image shared on TikTok. Moreover, the spokesperson said it cannot confirm the identities of jurors who deliberated in the trial because they are under seal for one year. Jurors are, however, free to speak about their experience before then should they choose to do so.

Lending some credibility to his TikTok page was the fact that it wasn't an entirely new account spun up just for the purpose of claiming to be a juror — there were two earlier posts pertaining to travel. But CNN Business was able to trace back to the account's previous name and avatar for the TikTok account which linked to the man elsewhere online.

"I deleted everything"

Asked whether he served on the trial, he initially texted: "I'm sorry that is none of your business," before acknowledging that he was behind the account: "I deleted everything, leave me alone and don't spread my information please. I do not give you permission to use any of my information in any article," he said. "There's more important things to write about, such as mass shootings, climate change, war, etc."

It is unclear what he hoped to accomplish, or why he himself would devote time to posting about the trial given the other pressing societal issues. Asked what inspired him to post at all purporting to be a juror, he said: "I'm sorry but I'm not answering any more questions."

Throughout the trial, the vocal majority on TikTok indicated support for Depp whose case centered around whether Heard had falsely and maliciously accused him of domestic abuse in an opinion piece in The Washington Post in 2018. Heard, for her part, countersued Depp — and after six weeks of hearing their cases, the jury ultimately found that both Depp and Heard had defamed each other, with Depp being awarded $15 million in damages and Heard just $2 million.

TikTok's algorithm works in such a way that it featured a never-ending rabbit hole of pro-Depp content, with many finding virality by posting favorable content to Depp. By nature of its algorithm, on TikTok, Fiesler pointed out, "the odds that someone with very few followers can have something go viral is higher [that on other platforms]."

"My first thought was, 'Why do people think this is real?'" said Fiesler. "At the same time, there were a lot of comments — clearly just people assuming that it was real, and there was certainly nothing to support that. There was no kind of evidence. It seemed to me that this is totally the kind of thing somebody would just do for views, for a joke or whatever."

Fiesler said there's incentive for creators to post content that people engage with — to get more views, followers and an eventual financial payoff if one's platform grows large enough.

For those who primarily consume their news through social media, the danger is in believing that what's shown is the full picture, said Fiesler. "One of the big challenges with misinformation on social media is its very, very hard to correct it," she added.

It looks like those rumors of Johnny Depp reprising his role of Jack Sparrow are not coming to fruition.

A representative for the actor denied recent reports that Depp was slated to return to the "Pirates of the Caribbean" franchise, telling NBC News that "this is made up."

In the wake of his defamation suit against ex-wife Amber Heard, rumors spread like wildfire that Depp was to return as Sparrow, and Disney was set to pay him $301 million, Forbes reported.

Jerry Bruckheimer, famed producer of the "Pirates of the Caribbean" films, put those rumors to bed by telling The Times that Depp was "not at this point" returning.

But he gave a glimmer of hope when he added, "The future is yet to be decided."

Depp accused his former wife of libeling him with a 2018 Washington Post op-ed describing herself as "a public figure representing domestic abuse."

A jury awarded Depp $15 million in damages, and Heard was awarded $2 million in her countersuit.

After Heard's op-ed was published, Depp was dropped from "Pirates of the Caribbean" and "Fantastic Beasts."

Attorneys for Johnny Depp have asked a Virginia judge to deny Amber Heard's post-trial motions asking for a mistrial, calling the legal arguments "frivolous."

Heard and Depp were both found liable for defamation in their lawsuits against each other last month. The jury initially awarded $15 million in damages to Depp and only $2 million to Heard. Though, because punitive damages in the state of Virginia are capped at $350,000, the judge reduced Depp's $5 million in punitive damages to that amount.

Attorneys for Heard asked the court to declare a mistrial and order a new trial in a motion filed last week.

Depp's attorneys argued in a memo filed Monday that a judge cannot arbitrarily substitute their judgment for that of a jury.

The memo also said Heard's contention that the damages awarded to her ex-husband are excessive and unsupported by the evidence is "baseless."

"While Ms. Heard slings an exceptional amount of mud at the wall in the hope that something might stick, the jury's verdict on damages was perfectly reasonable and supported by the evidence and testimony in this case," Depp's legal team states in the memo.

Attorneys for Heard also claimed in a court filing last week that the information on the jury panel list sent to counsel ahead of trial does not appear to match the demographics of one of the jurors, compromising Heard's rights to due process.

Heard waived her right to challenge the accuracy of the jury panel information because her team didn't raise the issue with the court at the time, Depp's attorneys argue.

"Mr. Depp respectfully requests that this Court deny Ms. Heard's frivolous motion in its entirety and reject her outlandish requests to set aside the jury verdict, dismiss the complaint, or, in the alternative, order a new trial and investigate Juror 15," the memo says.

Depp sued Heard for defamation over a 2018 op-ed she wrote for The Washington Post in which she described herself as a "public figure representing domestic abuse." Though Depp was not named in the article, he claimed it cost him lucrative acting roles.

Heard countersued Depp, to whom she was married from 2015-2016 before divorcing, for defamation over statements Depp's attorney made about her abuse claims.

After several weeks of testimony, the jury found that Heard defamed Depp in three separate statements in The Washington Post piece, and that Depp defamed Heard with one statement his attorney made.

A Virginia judge on Wednesday rejected an effort by actress Amber Heard to set aside the $10 million judgment awarded against her in favor of her ex-husband, Johnny Depp.

Depp won a defamation suit against Heard last month in a high-profile civil trial. Heard won a smaller, $2 million judgment on a counterclaim she filed against Depp.

Earlier this month, Heard filed a motion seeking to have Depp’s verdict set aside, or have a mistrial declared. Her lawyers cited multiple factors, including an apparent case of mistaken identity with one of the jurors.

In a written order, Judge Penney Azcarate rejected all of Heard’s claims and said the juror issue specifically was irrelevant and that Heard can’t show she was prejudiced.

“The juror was vetted, sat for the entire jury, deliberated, and reached a verdict. The only evidence before this Court is that this juror and all jurors followed their oaths, the Court’s instructions, and orders. This Court is bound by the competent decision of the jury,” Azcarate wrote.

Depp sued for $50 million in Fairfax County after Heard wrote a 2018 op-ed piece in The Washington Post about domestic violence in which she referred to herself as “a public figure representing domestic abuse.” The article never mentioned Depp by name, but his lawyers said several passages in the article defamed him by implication by referring to highly publicized abuse allegations she made in 2016 as she filed for divorce.

Heard then filed a $100 million counterclaim, also for defamation. By the time the case went to trial, her counterclaim had been whittled down to a few statements made by one of Depp’s lawyers, who called Heard’s abuse allegations a hoax.

The jury awarded $15 million to Depp and $2 million to Heard on her counterclaim. The $15 million judgment was reduced to $10.35 million because Virginia law caps punitive damages at $350,000.

The judge did not spell out the rationale for rejecting Heard's other claims in Wednesday's order.

Among other things, Heard argued that the $10 million verdict is unsupported by the facts, and seems to demonstrate that jurors failed to focus on the fallout from the 2018 op-ed piece — as they were supposed to do — and instead just looked broadly at the damage Depp’s reputation suffered as a result of the alleged abuse.

Heard’s lawyers also argued argue that the verdicts for Depp on one hand and Heard on the other are fundamentally nonsensical.

“The jury’s dueling verdicts are inconsistent and irreconcilable,” her lawyers, Elaine Bredehoft and Benjamin Rottenborn, wrote.

Heard's lawyers also challenged the verdict on the basis that one of the seven jurors who decided the case was never summoned for jury duty. According to court papers, a 77-year-old county resident received a jury summons. But the man’s son, who has the same name and lives at the same address, responded to the summons and served in his stead.

Heard’s lawyers argued that Virginia law is strict about juror identities, and the case of mistaken identity is grounds for a mistrial. They presented no evidence that the 52-year-old son, identified in court papers only as Juror #15, purposefully or insidiously sought to replace his father, but they argue that possibility should not be discounted.

“The Court cannot assume, as Mr. Depp asks it to, that Juror 15’s apparently improper service was an innocent mistake. It could have been an intentional attempt to serve on the jury of a high-profile case,” Heard’s lawyers wrote.

Heard still has the ability to appeal the verdict to the Virginia Court of Appeals. The issues presented to the appellate court could well be different from the issues Azcarate rejected Wednesday.

In a separate order, the judge ordered that dozens of court documents be unsealed, including motions seeking to compel independent medical examinations of both Depp and Heard. A handful of documents will remain sealed, mostly because they contain personal contact information or personal medical information.

“In this matter, both litigants sued one another, thereby opening themselves up to the public forum of a jury trial. Court records are public information," Azcarate wrote.