Emojis and the Legal Conundrum

Introduction

Throughout history, as communication methods evolved with the rise in technological advancements, so too did the symbols used to convey messages, emotions, and ideas. From ancient pictograms and hieroglyphs to contemporary digital emojis, the spectrum of visual representation has grown increasingly sophisticated, enhancing the ability to express complex thoughts effectively.

In today’s digital era of instant messaging and mixed reality, emojis serve as a dynamic and evolving form of communication, enriching text by adding emotional and contextual depth. While often regarded as a universal language that transcends linguistic barriers, emojis do not always carry uniform meanings. Their interpretation is based on cultural and regional contexts and therefore, varies.

Legal Implications of Emojis

In legal contexts, emojis can be and are subject to varying interpretations depending on their usage and the broader communicative exchange. They serve as indicators of intent or emotion, playing a vital role in determining contractual agreements or criminal liability. Courts in multiple jurisdictions, including the U.S., U.K., New Zealand, Australia, France, and India, have dealt with cases where emojis were central to legal disputes, requiring nuanced interpretations of their meanings.

International Perspectives on Emojis

Canada: Emojis as a Form of Signature

In South West Terminal Ltd v. Achter Land & Cattle Ltd, (2023 SKKB 116) the Saskatchewan Court of the King’s Bench ruled that the thumbs-up emoji could constitute a valid signature. The case revolved around a contract for the delivery of 87 metric tonnes of flax at $669 per metric tonne. After the buyer sent the contract via text with the message, “Please confirm flax contract,” the seller responded with a thumbs up emoji. The seller argued that this merely acknowledged receipt of the message, while the buyer contended that it signified acceptance of the contract. Justice Keene referred to dictionary definitions of the emoji, ultimately concluding that it conveyed agreement and was sufficient to enforce the contract, despite concerns that this decision might lead to an influx of similar cases.

United States: Emojis as Criminal Evidence

In the 2015 trial of Ross Ulbricht, founder of the Silk Road online marketplace, emojis played a significant role in interpreting digital communications. Initially excluded from evidence, Judge Katherine Forrest later ruled that emojis must fully be considered alongside text messages to fully understand the defendant’s intent. Emojis are thus, frequently admitted as evidence in U.S. courts, with their relevance determined by the context in which they appear.

France: Emojis as Death Threats

In 2016, a French court convicted Ajoghag Bilal for issuing a death threat via text message that included a gun emoji. The court found that the emoji, sent to his ex-girlfriend, constituted a criminal threat under Article 222-17 of the French Penal Code. Bilal was sentenced to six months in prison and fined 1,000 euros, highlighting how digital symbols can be legally interpreted as threats.

Israel: Emojis in Rental Agreements

In Dahan v. Shakaroff, ["Dahan v. Shacharoff" (2017). Historical and Topical Legal Documents, 1515], the Tel Aviv Small Claims Court ruled that a series of positive emojis sent by prospective tenants to a landlord—including a smiley face, champagne bottle, and dancing figures—conveyed an intent to rent an apartment. The landlord, relying on this perceived agreement, removed the property from the market, only for the tenants to back out. The court found that the emojis demonstrated a commitment to rent and awarded damages to the landlord.

Australia: Defamation Through Emojis

In Burrows v. Houda, [2020] NSWDC 485, a New South Wales District Court ruled that a zipper-mouth emoji used in a lawyer’s tweet was defamatory. The court determined that the emoji had a strong implication pertaining to secrecy or wrongdoing, damaging the plaintiff’s professional reputation. Justice Gibson referenced Emojipedia to establish the emoji’s meaning, reinforcing that emojis can contribute to defamation claims.

India: Emerging Legal Perspectives on Emojis

While legal disputes involving emojis are relatively new in India, courts are gradually recognizing their significance in digital communication.

• Employment Dismissal Case: In Director General, Railway Protection Force v. Narendra Chauhan, [W.P(MD)No.65 of 2021], the Madras High Court reviewed a case where an employee was dismissed for responding with a thumbs up emoji to a WhatsApp message about a murder. The Railway Force argued that the emoji signified support for the crime, while the court ruled that it merely acknowledged receipt of the message. Consequently, the court reinstated the employee without back wages.
• Harassment Complaint: In I. Linga Bhaskar v. State of Tamil Nadu, (AIRONLINE 2018 MAD 273) an official WhatsApp group used for workplace communication saw indoor staff responding to a complaint video with a laughing face with tears emojis. The complainant argued that this reaction caused her mental distress. The case, filed under multiple legal provisions, was later dismissed, with the court ruling that emojis alone could not constitute harassment, however, a caveat was issued to the person who used said emojis.

Conclusion

Emojis, in themselves, are not inherently criminal or defamatory, nor do they automatically indicate agreement in contractual matters. Their legal significance depends on context, usage, and cultural interpretation. While courts worldwide are increasingly addressing emoji-related disputes, interpretations vary based on jurisdictional differences, legal frameworks, and societal norms. In India, legal precedents on emojis are still developing, with courts focusing on broader communication patterns rather than isolated emoji meanings. As digital interactions continue to evolve, the legal system will likely refine its approach to interpreting emojis within judicial proceedings.

The author affirms that this article is an entirely original work, never before submitted for publication at any journal, blog or other publication avenue. Any unintentional resemblance to previously published material is purely coincidental. This article is intended solely for academic and scholarly discussion. The author takes personal responsibility for any potential infringement of intellectual property rights belonging to any individuals, organizations, governments, or institutions.

References-

1. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/29/nyregion/trial-silk-road-online-black-market-debating-emojis.html#:~:text=At%20issue%20was%20a%20piece,version%20of%20a%20smiley%20face
2. https://ssrana.in/posh-law/articles/emerging-legal-prospective-on-emojis-a-madras-high-court-judgement/#:~:text=No%20evidence%20of%20Harassment,Act%2C%201998%5B3%5D.
3. https://www.barandbench.com/law-firms/view-point/legal-impact-of-emojis-interpretation-implications-courtrooms
4. https://bluepencilling.com/2023/10/25/to-send-a-thumbs-up-or-not-that-is-the-real-question/