Johnny Depp has lost one high-profile defamation case involving his ex-wife, Amber Heard, in a London court. On Monday, the 58-year-old actor launched a sequel in Fairfax, Virginia, as part of an effort to refute career-damaging allegations that he abused Heard during their three-year marriage.

Ahead of jury selection, a court order said fans of the two celebrities could not “camp on courthouse grounds” and added: “Litigants and their legal teams in this trial will not pose for pictures or sign autographs in the courthouse or on courthouse grounds”. Contravention of the order would be treated on grounds of contempt.

The Virginia case centers on an op-ed Heard, 35, published in the Washington Post in 2019, in which she wrote that she had become “a public figure representing domestic abuse”. The piece did not mention Depp by name or go into details, but it also said she had experienced “the full force of our culture’s wrath for women who speak out”.

The London libel action, which Depp brought against the Sun after it described him as “wife beater”, ended with the judge ruling the article in question was “substantially true”. During the trial, the court heard testimony from Heard that she was in “fear for her life” during several encounters with the actor. Depp was refused permission to appeal.

In Depp’s new legal action, which could last six weeks, the actor and his lawyers must under US law reach a higher burden of proof, showing Heard not only defamed him but did so with malice.

Depp’s lawyers claim Heard orchestrated an elaborate hoax in order to cripple Depp’s career, an allegation that led her to file a $100m counter-claim. They plan to introduce witness testimony and review texts and photographs – all carried live on Court TV. If successful, Depp’s lawyers have said they will ask the judge, Penney Azcarate, to award $50m in damages.

Last week, Heard issued a statement to her 4.1 million Instagram followers, saying she continued to pay a price for speaking out against men in power.

“Hopefully when this case concludes, I can move on and so can Johnny,” she wrote.

The trial comes at a highly sensitive moment for Depp, who has seen film parts dry up, and for the US film industry, which despite efforts at behavioral and representational reform was recently tarnished during the Oscars ceremony when Will Smith slapped host Chris Rock on stage.

For Depp, who ranks among the top 10 highest-grossing movie stars of all time, the trial represents perhaps a last opportunity to salvage his career. As recently as 2010, he was earning $75m a year after making the transition from the brooding teen dream of 21 Jump Street to lead roles in light-entertainment blockbusters including the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise.

“His ability to almost guarantee a big box office … means studios are willing to pay whatever it takes to get a bit of the Depp magic,” Forbes noted then.

But Depp’s image lost its shine with tales of off-screen excess before his star power was all-but extinguished during the London high court action.

He was dropped from the Pirates and Fantastic Beasts franchises and has only appeared in relatively small-budget movies, City of Lies and Minamata, which were filmed before the London verdict and collectively made $5m. He does, however, have a voice-over part in an upcoming animation, Puffins Impossible.

In 2020, the Hollywood Reporter quoted a studio source saying: “You simply can’t work with him now. He’s radioactive.”

The French luxury house Dior was roundly criticized for keeping Depp as the face of its Sauvage fragrance.

After the UK ruling, Heard’s lawyers filed to have Depp’s claim in Virginia dismissed. Judge Azcarate rejected the motion, saying it would set a “dangerous precedent” since libel laws in the US and the UK are substantially different.

But as the trial opens, Heard’s lawyers are likely to invoke a Virginia law that creates immunity from civil liability for individuals under certain circumstances, including defamation based solely on statements that are made either to third parties regarding “matters of public concern that would be protected under the first amendment” to the US constitution.

Heard’s lawyer, Elaine Bredehoft, has argued the article in question addressed a very serious issue of public concern: domestic violence. Depp’s lawyers have argued that the law does not apply, because Heard’s claims pertain to Depp’s alleged personal behavior.