From social media spats and bickering co-stars to explicit lyrics and diss tracks, we're very used to seeing celebrities have arguments – and making it public. It only takes a few choice words to explode minor squabbles into all-out war. Time is a great healer, but there are some occasions when its powers aren’t healing enough and the A-list rage spills over into the courtroom.
In recent years, star-on-star court cases have abounded, none more so than Johnny Depp v Amber Heard which saw the internet practically explode in a multitude of memes and gifs. Ben Atkin, senior associate in the dispute resolution team at Kingsley Napley, told HELLO! it was "the first case of its kind to have that kind of following and discourse on short-form-video social media".
Join HELLO! as we look in more detail at these two cases, as well as other notorious examples of A-listers taking their beef to the courtroom.
Blac Chyna vs The Kardashians
© FilmMagicThere's enough drama in the Kardashian-Jenner family as it is, but things took a turn for the worse when Blac Chyna, a model, influencer and Rob Kardashian's former fiancée, accused Kim Kardashian, Kris Jenner, Khloé Kardashian and Kylie Jenner of making statements that ruined or defamed her reputation and of plotting to ensure her TV show Rob & Chyna was axed.
The 2016 show chronicled the couple's life leading up to the birth of their first child, but was axed after just one season. Blac Chyna claimed the Kardashian-Jenners had ruined her career by convincing television executives to cancel the show, suing them for a reported $100m (£79.9m). The trial lasted for nine days in 2022, during which time all four famous defendants took to the stand.
The lawsuit alleged that the reality stars falsely told television producers that Blac Chyna had violently attacked Rob in December 2016, in an attempt to see the reality show cancelled. Blac Chyna's lawyer Lynne Ciani argued that there was no evidence to suggest any harm had come to Rob, whereas the Kardashian-Jenner's attorney Michael Rhodes presented the argument that the family had every reason to believe Rob and Kris's boyfriend Corey Gamble, who said he broke up the fight in question and was a key defence witness.
Jurors found that the Kardashian-Jenners acted in bad faith by telling the producers of Rob & Chyna about the alleged fight. However, as executives from the E! network testified that the series ended because the relationship ended, rather than from any interference from the Kardashian-Jenners, no damages were awarded and the Kardashian-Jenners won the case.
In the years since the case, Blac Chyna has said she is on speaking terms with Kris, Kylie and Khloé, as well as being friendly with her ex Rob.
Angelina Jolie vs Brad Pitt via Chateau Miraval
© Getty ImagesIt took almost a decade of legal back-and-forth to settle the divorce between actors Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt when a judge finally signed off on the dissolution of their two-year marriage in December 2024. "More than eight years ago, Angelina filed for divorce from Mr. Pitt. Since that time, she has focused on finding peace and healing for their family," Angelina's lawyer James Simon told PEOPLE at the time. "Frankly, Angelina is exhausted, but she is relieved this one part is over."
The 'one part' in question relates to the fact that the legal woes for the pair are far from over, as the battle over Château Miraval, the former couple's home, vineyard and winery in France, continues. "Dubbed as the 'war of the rosé', it’s a lesson as old as time about the challenges of going into business with a spouse," Rachel Spencer Robb, Partner in Family Law at Clarion told HELLO!. "What starts out as a positive venture with a shared outcome and unwavering support of the other, sometimes falls apart when one party is wronged outside of the marriage or differences of opinion arise over skill sets, work ethics, company direction and so on.
"When a business is created together during the marriage rather than owned by one party beforehand and therefore able to be included in a pre-nup, this can be far more complicated. The parties have often not taken any legal advice from any solicitor as to how best to set up the company so that it might be protected against a fall out."
© AFP via Getty ImagesIn 2021, Angelina sold her 50 per cent stake in the winery to Tenute del Mondo, a subsidiary of the Stoli Group, known for its luxury wines and spirits. Brad sued his ex-wife for breach of implied contract, on the basis that the sale violated a prior agreement requiring mutual consent before selling stakes in the property.
Angelina then retaliated with a countersuit that argued she sold her stake in the company after she was shut out of operating or profiting from the wine business. The court filing stated that Angelina had planned to sell her ownership stake to Brad, but talks disintegrated after she refused to sign a nondisclosure agreement that would have prevented her from speaking about Brad's alleged abuse outside of court.
© WireImage"While Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie's divorce process has been toxic to say the least – with allegations of abuse – these are what we call 'conduct arguments' and so unlikely to have an effect on the handling of the Chateau Miraval estate," said Rachel.
"In addition to the 'no fault divorce' that was brought into English law in April 2022, the way that one party behaves towards the other during the breakdown of the marriage (and prior to that ) are not usually taken into account when splitting assets and deciding on financial settlements unless it's very extreme or there has been a detrimental financial impact, such as mishandling of funds.
"It will be interesting to follow the outcome of the case as Pitt claims a verbal agreement with Jolie prevented her from selling her shares, however the finer details surrounding shared ownership will need to be explored by the courts." The legal battle continues at the time of writing.
Amber Heard vs Johnny Depp
This infamous case dubbed the 'trial by TikTok' went viral with clips and dramatic moments from the courtroom as the former spouses had it out in a very public way.
The A-list actors split in 2016, and in 2018 Amber wrote an op-ed for The Washington Post which described her experience surviving domestic abuse without mentioning Johnny by name. The following year, Johnny sued Amber for defamation, seeking $50 million in damages, and claimed that Amber was not the victim of abuse but rather the perpetrator, and that the op-ed was a ploy to stir up more positive press for herself.
A ruling against Johnny followed in the UK after he sued The Sun's executive editor Dan Wootton and its parent company News Group Newspapers for referring to him as a "wife-beater".
"This case is a perfect demonstration of the risk of pursuing libel claims in the UK," Jessica Welch, partner at Simkins LLP, told HELLO!. "Libel claims aren't big 'money makers' in the UK but they are often the only option for clients where the allegations are so egregious or where the harm caused to a reputation is so severe that only a court judgment can vindicate the individual's or company's reputation. However, the publicity and interest generated by the case alone often means that significantly more people end up knowing about the allegations that caused the concern in the first place.
"High-profile cases are a risk that many clients should probably only take if the issues at play are so fundamental that they cannot realistically be left unchallenged. For Depp, the judge found that The Sun's article was substantially true, and Depp lost his case."
© Getty Images for Art of ElysiumIn 2021 Amber countersued Johnny for $100 million. In 2022, the much-discussed case came to trial in Virginia, with both famous faces taking the stand.
Amber's legal team claimed she wrote The Washington Post piece as free speech, and that Johnny perpetrated the violence. Their argument focused on Johnny's use of drugs and alcohol, as well as providing evidence in the form of text messages and recordings, while Johnny's team argued that Amber was the alleged abuser in the relationship. The jury unanimously found that Amber's op-ed defamed Johnny. He was awarded $5 million in punitive damages and $10 million in compensatory damages.
© POOL/AFP via Getty ImagesThe jury also awarded Amber $2 million in compensatory damages in her counterclaim. While Johnny thanked the jury for giving him his "life back", Amber expressed disappointment in the outcome.
Nicki Minaj vs. Tracy Chapman
© Getty Images for The Recording AIn October 2018, Tracy filed a lawsuit against Nicki on the basis that Nicki's song "Sorry" used the lyrics and vocal melody from "Baby Can I Hold You," which Tracy released in 1988. According to the suit, Nicki's team sent a formal request in July 2018 asking to "interpolate" Tracy's song, which meant she would re-record the song rather than sample it. The request was denied, but Tracy believed the recording had already taken place before a request was even sent.
Nicki wrote a since-deleted tweet claiming she had "no idea" her song used Tracy's lyrics and melody, and the song was not included in her album but instead leaked online. They avoided going to trial when Tracy accepted $450,000 from Nicki. "This case showed how costly those types of mistakes can be," Ben told HELLO!.
Nicolas Cage vs Kathleen Turner
© Ron Galella Collection via GettyTheir on-screen romance in Peggy Sue Got Married certainly did not translate to any real-life friendship for actors Nicolas Cage and Kathleen Turner. The latter made her feelings perfectly clear in her autobiography Send Yourselves Roses when she stated that her former co-star was "arrested twice for drunk-driving and, I think, for stealing a dog. He'd come across a Chihuahua he liked and stuck it in his jacket."
Nicolas won an apology and damages from Kathleen, while Headline Publishing Group and the Daily Mail, who published an extract of the book, accepted that the allegations were untrue, paid Nicolas' legal fees and made a donation to charity.
Radiohead vs Lana Del Rey
© Getty Images for ABALaurence said: "Radiohead's complaint was that Lana Del Rey had copied their song "Creep" when she wrote "Get Free". By doing so it was claimed that she had stolen their "Intellectual Property" (a valuable asset which is the result of creativity). The claim was for 100% of the royalties that "Get Free" received.
He noted that the case prompted plenty of debate in the public sphere. "Did the songs sound similar or similar enough that Ms Del Rey should hand over the royalties? Some said they could immediately hear "Creep" in Ms Del Ray's song. Many raised the point that there are only so many notes and chords in the world and there is a huge challenge to be completely unique (and Ed Sheeran recently faced a challenge himself – as a result we understand he now records his songwriting creative process to protect against similar challenges in the future). Somewhat ironically, it was also pointed out that Radiohead had also faced claims that "Creep" had borrowed from another song – "The Air That I Breathe" by The Hollies."
Both parties told a different story publicly, but when performing "Creep" at the Lollapalooza festival in Sao Paolo, Brazil in 2018, Lana said: "Now that my lawsuit's over, I guess I can sing that song any time I want, right?"
Rebekah Vardy v Coleen Rooney
© SOPA Images/LightRocket via GettPerhaps one of the most famous celebrity versus celebrity cases is the 'Wagatha Christie' lawsuit between Rebekah Vardy and Coleen Rooney, both wives of prominent football players.
Laurence broke the case down: "Famously, in October 2019, Ms Coleen Rooney posted on Twitter (as was) setting out in some detail an explanation of a sting operation she had undertaken in order to identify the individual that she believed was the source of stories about her that had been leaked to the press. Most of us will remember the devastating final line 'It's…….Rebekah Vardy's account'.
"With Ms Vardy's reputation under threat, she consulted her lawyers. Whilst we do not know what advice she received, she made the decision to sue Ms Rooney for libel – claiming that what had been tweeted was untrue and that she should be paid damages for loss (and stress) that she has suffered as a result."
© GC Images"The case played out to a trial in the Summer of 2022. Both parties received massive attention in terms of their lifestyles, their evidence and even their appearance at trial. Ms Vardy had set out to restore her reputation but it had the opposite effect. In a damning judgement, Ms Justice Steyn has recorded that she found Ms Vardy's evidence at trial "manifestly inconsistent” with the other evidence presented and "evasive and implausible".
"A compelling feature of the case, (which gathered considerable interest both within and outside the legal community) was Ms Vardy’s disclosure or, more accurately, what she did not disclose," added Laurence.
"The court was told that Ms Vardy’s laptop had crashed before information could be taken from it and there was also the small matter of her assistant's mobile telephone being dropped into the North Sea – taking with it a number of potentially relevant WhatsApp messages. Ms Vardy's action failed and she was faced with not only paying her own legal costs, but also a large proportion of Ms Rooney's.
Laurence said of the result: "Vardy 0 – Rooney 1 (assisted by a spectacular own goal from Ms Vardy)."
