The Courtroom Catches Up to the Keyboard
Law moves slowly. Social media moved fast. By the time courts fully reckoned with the legal status of a tweet or a text message, they already had a new challenge: the emojiEmoji
A Japanese word (絵文字) meaning 'picture character' — small graphical symbols used in digital communication to express ideas, emotions, and objects.. Courts in the United States, Canada, Israel, France, and elsewhere have now handled cases where emoji were submitted as evidence, where their meaning was contested by opposing counsel, and where a judge or jury had to decide what a 👍 or a 💣 actually meant.
The results have been uneven, sometimes surprising, and occasionally precedent-setting in ways that affect anyone who types on a phone.
The Canadian Thumbs-Up Contract Case
In 2023, a Saskatchewan court ruled that a thumbs-up emoji 👍 sent via text message constituted a legally binding signature on a flax contract worth approximately $82,000 CAD. The farmer who sent the thumbs-up argued he meant only that he had received the document — not that he had agreed to its terms. The grain buyer argued, and the court agreed, that in the context of their business relationship and the way the exchange was worded, a 👍 signaled acceptance.
The case made international headlines and raised a question that lawyers and contract theorists hadn't fully addressed: when does a digital gesture constitute a legally enforceable agreement? The court's reasoning emphasized context — the nature of their relationship, the phrasing of the message, and industry norms — but the thumbs-up was the decisive symbol.
This case is now regularly cited in discussions of digital contract formation. The short version of the lesson: be careful what you emoji in response to a contract document.
Threat or Joke? The Knife and Gun Emoji Problem
A number of cases have involved emoji that could be read as threats. In the United States, courts have grappled with the question of whether a message containing 🔫 (pistol) or 🔪 (knife) or 💣 (bomb) constitutes a credible threat — a question with First Amendment implications.
In 2015, a teenager in New York was arrested after posting a message on Instagram that included gun and knife emoji alongside references to a police officer. He argued it was rap lyrics and obviously not a literal threat. The case was eventually dismissed, but it raised the question of how emoji affect the "true threat" analysis that courts use to determine whether speech loses First Amendment protection.
In another case, a man texting his ex-girlfriend sent a series of messages that included 😡 and 🔫 emoji. The question before the court was whether these emoji, in context, constituted a threat. Courts have generally looked at the totality of the message, the relationship between sender and receiver, and the reasonable interpretation of a recipient in the same position.
The platform renderingPlatform Rendering
How different platforms (Apple, Google, Samsung, etc.) display the same Unicode emoji with their own unique visual designs. question also matters legally. The 🔫 emoji was rendered as a realistic handgun on many platforms until 2016, when Apple changed it to a bright green water pistol. Samsung, Google, and others eventually followed. A threat that included a realistic handgun emoji may have a different legal character than the same threat with a toy gun — at least in theory.
Murder Trials and Digital Evidence
Emoji have appeared in murder trials as part of the broader body of digital evidence. Prosecutors and defense attorneys have submitted message threads as exhibits, and emoji within those threads have been interpreted by both sides.
In several high-profile cases, a suspect's use of 😢 or 😇 or 🙏 after a victim's death was presented as evidence of either genuine remorse (defense) or performative innocence (prosecution). Courts have had to address whether the meaning of these symbols is for the jury to decide, whether expert testimony on emoji usage is admissible, and whether prosecutors are permitted to introduce unfounded secondary interpretations.
In a 2016 case, a man convicted of murder had sent a series of emoji to the victim in the days before her death. The prosecution argued that certain emoji signaled controlling behavior and veiled threats. The defense argued they were affectionate. The jury sided with the prosecution.
Sexual Harassment and Hostile Environment Claims
Emoji have appeared in employment law, specifically in sexual harassment and hostile work environment claims. Courts have had to consider whether emoji contributed to a hostile environment and whether their use was unwelcome — both legally relevant determinations.
In this context, emoji like 😘 (face blowing a kiss), 🍑 🍆 (with their well-understood secondary meanings), or 😏 (smirking face) have been presented as evidence of unwanted sexual communication. The challenge for courts is that emoji meaning is highly contextual — the same 😏 can be playful in one relationship and predatory in another.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and various state equivalents have begun developing guidance on digital communication in harassment cases that encompasses emoji as a recognized component of the record.
The Interpretation Problem
A central legal challenge with emoji is the interpretation problem: who decides what an emoji means?
Expert witnesses on emoji have appeared in several cases, typically linguists or digital communication scholars. But courts have been inconsistent about whether this testimony is necessary, admissible, or useful. The argument against expert testimony is that emoji are sufficiently common that a reasonable person — a juror — can evaluate their meaning. The argument for expert testimony is that emoji meaning is genuinely contested, varies by platform, generation, and cultural context, and can't be assessed by intuition alone.
The platform rendering variation creates a specific sub-problem. If Party A sends an emoji that renders one way on their device and another way on Party B's device, which rendering controls? Courts have not uniformly answered this question.
What This Means for Ordinary Users
Most people will never have their emoji scrutinized in court. But the cases that have reached courts carry practical lessons:
- A 👍 in response to a contract or formal document may be construed as agreement, not just acknowledgment.
- Emoji that could be read as threats (🔪 🔫 💣) in combination with threatening text are not protected as obviously non-serious just because they're cartoon images.
- Emoji in harassment cases contribute to the totality of the record — they don't disappear just because they're small.
- Screenshots of emoji-containing messages are routinely used as evidence; assume any digital message you send is permanent.
The Emoji as Legal Character
What the growing body of emoji case law reveals is that law doesn't treat emoji as decorations. Courts treat them as communicative acts that carry meaning — sometimes legally determinative meaning. A thumbs-up can close a deal. A knife can constitute a threat. A series of hearts can establish a pattern.
The gap between how casually most people use emoji and how seriously law treats them is significant. As digital communication increasingly structures our legal and professional lives, that gap is worth keeping in mind.