Guilty or Trending: politics of celebrity lawsuits

By Aanchal Bagaria

As any Hollywood story goes, it usually starts with a celebrity scandal, escalating into a media circus and, from there, all roads lead to the entire world glued to a courtroom live stream, with popcorn in one hand and Twitter in the other.  How many times have you opened the New York Times application (or any other news app), only to be welcomed with some fresh and urgent update regarding the flashiest legal battle of all: ‘Blake Lively vs Justin Baldoni’? Even though the lawsuit’s contents are still being worked out, it has already dominated international news cycles and overtaken coverage of more pressing geopolitical issues. Do you remember Heard vs Depp in 2022?, the first live streamed trial in American History which became a case that sparked gender and domestic abuse debates. Celebrity lawsuits have become global spectacles oftentimes distracting us from actual international crises. In between images of Russia’s war on Ukraine, US mass shootings and abortion-rights rallies, it was video snippets coming from a static, dark wood-paneled courtroom in Fairfax, Virginia, that went viral.  Nothing, it turns out, spins the news cycle like a high profile case of defamation accompanied by social media frenzy. Data in the US shows news articles about the defamation trial have generated more interactions on social media than articles about the Supreme Court and reproductive rights. One should wonder whether these battles push for positive change or are merely overt distractions when the world next to us is crashing and burning. 

Suddenly, TikTokers are legal experts, Twitter threads read like Supreme Court processings, and everyone with access to Wi-Fi connection has an opinion on defamation law. 

Where does this obsession stem from? According to Psychology Today, “In our global village, the best targets for gossip are the faces we all know. We are born to dish dirt, evolutionary psychologists agree; it’s the most efficient way to navigate society and to determine who is trustworthy.” Thus, despite not having ever met those  celebrities in question, we make their personal life our business. Courtroom dramas have long been a pillar of American pop culture. TV shows like NBC’s Law & Order have been on the air longer than many popular TikTokers have been alive. 

Beyond this obsession and insatiable curiosity with gossip, these legal battles do have the potential to yield actual influence and difference. They impact the general public’s views of justice, spark political discussions and occasionally have an effect on legislative matters. Douglas, J. E., & Olshaker, M. (2017) underline the benefits of celebrity cases, ‘they serve as a powerful deterrent to criminal activity. When celebrities face consequences for their actions, it can send a strong message to the public, particularly those who idolize them. This potential for influencing behavior underscores the importance of holding everyone accountable, regardless of their fame or social status.’ 

Remember the Bethany clause? Named after the Real Housewife of New York City, Bethany Frankel turned her screen time into a Skinnygirl empire (which she later sold for approximately $100 million), she made sure to eliminate a clause that would have entitled the TV network, Bravo, to a portion of any earnings resulting from her television exposure. Other examples, such as the #MeToo movement, ignited by allegations of sexual misconduct against Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein in 2017, brought attention to issues of sexual harassment and assault across industries.  This case did its part in influencing and reshaping workplace harassment rules. Is there a way in which Celebrity defamation lawsuits spark similar shifts in defamation law, media regulation, or harassment policies?

Despite not having set foot in a courtroom, how countries crown a winner is worth analysing, since all of them  abide by different rulebooks. Defamation cases in the United States favour free speech unless they hire a PR team working twice as hard as the Formula1 pit crew, revealing timed specials, and using social media as a weapon, all while making sure that the court of public opinion sides in their favour. Whereas in the UK, they are more rigid. For example,  Johnny Depp lost his case against The Sun, but in his home country, the outcome was the opposite. In India, defamation cases are not exactly lawsuits but potential jail convictions, and all you need is one wrong tweet to do it for you. 

Now, what does this mean for the overarching perception of justice? The result of the Baldoni v. Lively case impacts on how people see gendered power dynamics and legal justice. At a time when soft power reigns supreme, court decisions have the potential to influence world opinion. Speaking of opinions, social media has already taken ownership of the narratives, actual battles are being held right this moment on Reddit, X and TikTok. ‘Trial by Public Opinion’ or rather the sensationalization of the media is distorting reality and making way for showdowns by fan groups rather than actually trained plaintiffs. In this battle of digital discourse, who can be trusted?

Now, we can ask ourselves whether these cases change the existing fabric of the legal system or are just mere spectacles brought on by their respective PR agencies. While they may not lead to policy changes, they still act as references that redefine phenomena like feminism and transparency in the international context except, maybe, when social media controls the narrative. For instance, the MeToo movement led to corporate accountability measures, whereas  the Depp v. Heard trial opened the discourse for domestic abuse and its survivors. 

Lastly, one thing to remember about these battles is that they are more about who has the loudest voice  and less about justice and law. The choice is ours, do we give them a higher status than other important crises that we let  fade in the background, or do we choose our battles more wisely?