Johnny Depp was at a pub in England's north-east before winning his defamation case against former wife Amber Heard.
The 58-year-old was photographed with musicians Jeff Beck and Sam Fender at a Newcastle pub.
Mr Depp smiled for photos with patrons and staff and was filmed first-bumping a member of the public as he was guided from the venue, shaking hands with a man who yelled "we love you Johnny ... I love you bro" as he left.
Amber Heard was in the Virginia court for the decision. She says she faces regular abuse and death threats due to the legal proceedings.
Between the televised hearings and the social media reaction, there's a lot at play, and a legal expert said "it's almost inevitable" the dispute has some way to go before it's all over.
So, how much did Johnny Depp win?
As it stands, the jury found Mr Depp should receive $US10 million ($14.4 million) in compensatory damages and $US5 million in punitive damages.
But the judge said state law capped punitive damages at $US350,000, meaning Mr Depp was awarded $US10.35 million.
But it's not a complete win for Mr Depp. Ms Heard was awarded $US2 million for her counterclaim.
"And for her defamation claims, which really relate to Johnny Depp's lawyer and actions he took on Johnny's behalf, [Ms Heard] was awarded $2 million," US lawyer Brent Ward said.
What are punitive damages?
Punitive damages are designed to punish a defendant for their actions.
The jury found that not only had Ms Heard made false and defamatory statements, but that she'd done so with "actual malice".
How much is Amber Heard worth? Can she afford the loss?
Speaking strictly in financial terms, it's hard to know how much Ms Heard is worth.
The actor has appeared in dozens of films, including big-budget blockbusters for which she would have earned millions.
But her wealth is unclear, with many of the figures circulating online largely based on speculation.
Could Amber Heard appeal the decision?
That's very likely, according to English solicitor Mark Stephens, who said there may have been legal errors during the case.
"I think it's almost inevitable that Amber Heard would have to appeal this verdict," Mr Stephens told the ABC.
"There were quite a lot of legal and procedural errors that the judge in Virginia seems to have caused."
But even if there are errors of law to appeal, Mr Stephens said it would be tough to overturn the jury's verdict.
Like in Australia, he said appeal courts could only interfere in a verdict if they find decisions by the judge seriously undermine the jury verdict.
He said, if anything, there would be an appeal to adjust the financial damages.
"In this particular case, I think it is likely to be the legal problems," he said.
"And I think American lawyers are pretty much divided 50-50 as to whether or not Amber Heard will be successful on that or not.
"Myself, I think that there is likely to be an adjustment to the award."
He said no-one has come out untarnished by the massive legal process.
"We are going to be left in this situation where Johnny Depp and Amber Heard have had their reputations trashed," he said.
Meanwhile, US legal analyst Neama Rahmani said he did not see the judge make any clear legal errors in the case.
"Amber Heard can certainly appeal, but there's not a very good basis for appeal, and if she does, interest will start to accrue on the judgement," Mr Rahmani said.
"The other issue is you can't appeal a factual finding, the jurors finding that she acted maliciously, that she lied, that she defamed it.
"You can only appeal a legal error. And I don't see a clear legal error made by the judge in this case. She called it pretty fairly, in my opinion."
How did Johnny Depp's lawyers convince the jury?
Jurors considered three defamation counts against Amber Heard.
The first count was whether Mr Depp was defamed by the online headline of the op-ed in The Washington Post: "I spoke up against sexual violence — and faced our culture's wrath. That has to change."
Next, was the op-ed's third paragraph: "Then two years ago, I became a public figure representing domestic abuse, and I felt the full force of our culture's wrath for women who speak out."
And the third count related to a second passage in the op-ed, where Ms Heard wrote, "I had the rare vantage point of seeing, in real time, how institutions protect men accused of abuse."
As a public figure, Mr Depp faced a high bar to win, but he cleared it according to seven unanimous jurors.
Mr Stephens said Mr Depp's lawyers were able to do this by deploying a well-known legal strategy known as "DARVO".
He said it stands for "deny, attack and reverse the victim offender."
"Essentially, what that means is deny that you did anything wrong if you're the abuser, and say that actually, you are the abused and not the abuser," he said.
He said judges are well-trained to recognise the strategy.
"The key difference is that it very rarely works with judges," he said.
"There are bench books for years indicating to watch out for lawyers using this ploy. But in relation to juries, it's very often, more often than not, successful."
