Netflix’s Depp v Heard wants to tell you the truth about the most-watched and most-scrutinized court case in recent history. That’s a hard task to pull off, especially since the events of the acrimonious showdown between Johnny Depp and his ex-wife Amber Heard were filtered through millions of TikTok, Instagram, and YouTube pundits. Depp v Heard was so ubiquitous on social media in the spring of 2022 that it quickly became hard to tell what was real and what was a meme.

So, does Depp v Heard (the series) pull it off? How does the docuseries alter our perception of the case, the verdict, and the fallout? In order to get to the bottom of that, we have to ask one simple question in a few different ways: who won Depp v Heard (the lawsuit)?

On June 1, 2022, the jury ruled in favor of Johnny Depp, concluding that Amber Heard’s 2018 Washington Post op-ed defamed the actor with its references to “sexual violence” and “domestic abuse.” Depp was awarded $10 million in compensatory damages and, after lowering the total from $5 million due to a Virginia state law, a total of $350,000 in punitive damages. So, Johnny Depp won the case — even though the jury recognized Amber Heard’s counterclaim that Depp’s ex-lawyer Adam Waldman had defamed her in 2020. Heard was awarded $2 million in compensatory damages and given nothing for punitive damages. After the trial ended, both Depp and Heard appealed their verdicts and ultimately reached a settlement wherein Heard would hand over $1 million to Depp.

The same can be said of public opinion, as support for Depp was generally overwhelming for the entire duration of the trial, and remains so to this day (as evidenced by what I’m sure will happen to my mentions after publishing this piece). It’s pretty much impossible to find a viewpoint from which Amber Heard emerged as the winner… unless you time-travel back to 2020.

Yeah — there was another case in the UK that litigated many of the same events that unfolded in the US trial via TikTok and YouTube. The difference: the 2020 trial didn’t allow cameras into the courtroom, so its impact on social media was comparatively minuscule.

The case, Depp v News Group Newspapers Ltd, involved Depp suing The Sun for running an article in April 2018 criticizing Johnny Depp’s casting in the Fantastic Beasts franchise due to his abuse of Amber Heard. For context, Heard’s Washington Post op-ed ran in December 2018. In the UK trial, the judge — not a jury — had to decide based on the evidence how many of the 14 abuse allegations — if any — were true in order to determine whether or not The Sun could be held as libelous. Both Depp and Heard testified. The judge ruled that 12 of the 14 were “substantially true” based on an “extremely detailed review of the evidence specific to each incident.” Depp’s appeal was tossed out.

While Heard was a witness in this case, not a plaintiff or defendant, the UK judge did rule that 86% of her allegations of abuse were “substantially true.” Two years later, a US jury would find the opposite — but the docuseries doesn’t mention this.

As impartial and unbiased as Depp v Heard claims to be, the inclusion and omission of certain facts undoubtedly tilts the series’ towards one side or the other.

For example, by attempting to put the entire US court case, the social media fervor, the evidence that wasn’t permitted, and the evidence that has come to light since the verdict, there are many instances wherein Depp v Heard reveals that the internet completely misrepresented Heard’s side of the story. The docuseries throws up a text disclaimer stating that, while TokTok pundits had a field day with Heard claiming that a pledge is the same as a donation, Heard actually has donated money to charities.

Additionally, the docuseries frames the Milani Cosmetics incident as a misunderstanding. According to Depp v Heard, the defense wasn’t claiming that Heard used a color correction palette and not the specific Milani Cosmetics color correction palette in the lawyer’s hand, which was released a year after she filed for divorce. This tilts the docuseries in Heard’s favor.

When it comes to the UK trial, the one that ruled in favor of Heard’s allegations being true, the docuseries only mentions it to counter false narratives that became fodder for memes. The Netflix series introduces transcripts from the UK trial into evidence to prove that Johnny Depp actually coined the term “megapint,” and to establish that it’s more than likely that Boo the teacup Yorkie pooped the bed. As for why the judge in the UK ruled that a dozen abuse allegations were “substantially true” whereas a jury in the US ruled the opposite, that is never addressed. That tilts the docuseries in Depp’s favor.

However, the documentary does include the infamous Deuters texts. These text messages, allegedly sent from Depp’s former assistant Stephen Deuters to Heard, seem to verify Heard’s allegation that Depp had kicked her in front of his team while traveling on an airplane. In the text message, Deuters writes, “[Depp] was appalled. When I told him he kicked you, he cried.”

These texts were not permitted into evidence in the US case since they were deemed irrelevant to the defamation in the Washington Post op-ed. But when those texts were released — after Depp fans raised money to unseal the rest of the evidence, mind you — the internet turned on Depp ever so slightly, ever so briefly. The irony of Depp fans paying to unseal evidence that made Depp look bad led to lots of memes, and his victory letter to his fans lost some likes. That tilts the docuseries in Heard’s favor.

But then, with literally 4 minutes left in the entire docuseries, Depp v Heard throws out the wild reveal that the Deuters texts might be doctored! Deuters himself said as much, and a motion filed by Depp’s team claimed that of all the text messages provided by Heard, the Deuters texts alone were in a distinct format. So, okay, now we’re tilted towards Depp again — which was the case all along on social media.

Except that the docuseries also floats a theory right at the end, almost in passing, that lots of the online support for Johnny Depp was the result of bots due to the insane numbers of likes that pro-Depp comments would get on TikTok and the fact that the vast majority of those “users” doing the liking were otherwise suspiciously inactive on the platform. That’s a huge accusation that deserves some analysis, but nope! The last 15 minutes of Depp v Heard yanks the viewer back and forth, leaving you wondering what to believe.

And ultimately, isn’t that the point? As Depp v Heard reveals over and over again, nothing in the case was what it seemed, except in instances where it was exactly what it seemed… depending on your point of view and if you take into account/exclude XYZ pieces of evidence. It’s clear who won Depp v Heard, the lawsuit, because there’s a dollar sign attached to the ruling. As for Depp v Heard the docuseries, you’re the judge.