Just Use Emojis🤣😂😹 at Your Own Risk

Emojis, which are small digital icons used to express emotions and convey messages, originated in Japan in the late 1990s. The term “emoji” combines the Japanese words “e” (picture) and “moji” (character).

Shigetaka Kurita, a Japanese engineer, is credited with creating the first set of emojis in 1999. These early emojis were simple 12x12 pixel images and were initially designed for a Japanese mobile internet platform. They included basic images like smiley faces, hearts, and weather symbols.

Emojis gained popularity in Japan, and by the mid-2000s, they had spread to other parts of the world as mobile phones and messaging apps became more widespread. However, it wasn’t until 2010 that emojis were officially encoded in the Unicode Standard, a global character encoding system that ensures consistency across different platforms and devices.

This Unicode standardization allowed emojis to be used and displayed consistently on various devices and operating systems. Over time, the emoji library expanded to include a wide range of symbols, objects, expressions, and cultural representations, making them a ubiquitous part of modern digital communication.

Emojis have become a crucial part of online communication, allowing people to express emotions, ideas, and concepts visually. They’ve also been the subject of various controversies and discussions, such as debates over cultural representation and the meanings of specific emojis. Today, emojis continue to evolve and play a significant role in how we communicate in the digital age.

A study conducted in the US yielded that emojis had been mentioned in court some 50 times a year between 2004 and 2019. This is because the use of emojis in messaging and other online correspondence has become subject to legal analysis. Legal? Yes, that’s right legal analysis. The reason was purely on misuse and assumptions by both the one who texted it and the one who was texted the emoji. This is has got nothing to do with emojis promoting adult related content in a family, praise and worship, work or funeral WhatsApp chat group. But you might want to be careful now that I mentioned emojis are being analyzed legally. Right?

Recently the Italian Supreme Court ruled that the use of the laughing face emoji was no longer a laughing matter:

A laughing emoji may be construed as defamation if it follows a post mocking a person’s physical disability, Italy’s Supreme Court ruled.

This case was centered on a Facebook dispute concerning traffic issues in Luino, Italy, where one user ridiculed another’s poor eyesight with laughing emojis 😂. Initially found guilty of defamation, fined €800 (KES 126,150) and ordered to pay €2,000 (KES 315,182) in compensation to the victim, a local businessman, the offender’s conviction was overturned by a Milan appeal court. However, the Supreme Court ruled that the combination of phrases and emojis did constitute defamation, recognizing emojis as tools that amplify text messages — an important legal development.

“The novelty of this sentence is that the emoticon is recognized as an instrument of communication that strengthens the message of the text,” Vera Cuzzocrea, a Rome psychologist, said.

It’s not just the laugh emoji alone that can land you in trouble as you will see later on. You may need to rethink the next time you text the thumbs-up emoji, as it could be interpreted as a digital signature after a farmer in Saskatchewan, Canada was fined a hefty sum for using the emoji. This was after he was sent a contract by text message and asked to confirm it. He argued that the thumbs up emoji he texted was to acknowledge receipt, but a judge ruled it amounted to a contractual agreement. He must now pay C$82,000 ( KES 8.9 m) for failing to fulfil the contract.

In March 2021, South West Terminal (SWT) sought to buy flax from farmers Bob and Chris Achter at a price of $17 per bushel, with delivery scheduled for November. After negotiations conducted via text messages, a contract was drawn up and formally signed by an SWT representative. This representative then sent a photo of the signed contract to Chris Achter, accompanied by a message asking for confirmation.

In response, Chris Achter conveyed his approval using a “thumbs-up” emoji. However, Achter never delivered the flax in November 2021, according to the documents. By November, the price of flax was $41 per bushel.

According to Achter in the court documents, he confirmed “the thumbs-up emoji simply confirmed that I received the Flax contract. It was not a confirmation that I agreed with the terms of the Flax Contract. The full terms and conditions of the Flax Contract were not sent to me, and I understood that the complete contract would follow by fax or email for me to review and sign. Mr. Mikleborough [sic] regularly texted me, and many of the messages were informal.”

Achter’s counsel said in the documents, “allowing a simple 👍 emoji to signify identity and acceptance would open up the flood gates to allow all sorts of cases coming forward asking for interpretations as to what various different emojis mean — for example what does a 👊 emoji mean or a 🤝 emoji mean, etc. Counsel argues the courts will be inundated with all kinds of cases if this court finds that the 👍 emoji can take the place of a signature.” Chris Achter also pointed out that he would never sign a contract for a product without including an “Act of God” clause, as per court documents.

The presiding judge ultimately ruled in favor of SWT. The judge believed that, based on the context and previous interactions between the parties, Chris Achter’s “thumbs-up” emoji constituted approval of the contract. The judge stated that it was the equivalent of a meeting of the minds, and Chris Achter was obligated to fulfill the contract. As a result, the judge ordered Chris Achter to pay SWT $82,000 in addition to interest and costs for his failure to deliver the flax as agreed.

In conclusion, the use of emojis in our digital communication has evolved significantly since their inception in the late 1990s. What began as simple expressions of emotion in text messages has now become a multifaceted part of our online conversations, with a vast array of symbols, objects, and cultural representations.

However, this transformation has not been without its challenges, as the legal landscape surrounding emojis has begun to take shape. The use of emojis in messaging and online correspondence is now subject to legal analysis. This newfound scrutiny arises from misunderstandings, misuse, and the potential for emojis to convey unintended meanings.

Emojis have played a pivotal role in legal cases, spanning from defamation to contract disputes. We saw how the Italian Supreme Court ruling that deemed a laughing face emoji defamatory when used in a mocking context, highlighting emojis’ amplifying potential. Moreover, emojis are not confined to mere expressions; they can also carry contractual weight, as demonstrated in a case where a “thumbs-up” emoji was considered a binding agreement, sparking discussions about interpreting emojis and their legal consequences.

As emojis continue to enhance our digital conversations, users must be mindful of the potential legal ramifications they carry. These small symbols introduce an additional layer of complexity and interpretation that should not be underestimated. In this evolving digital landscape, exercising caution and considering context is vital. Emojis, while adding vibrancy to our conversations, should be used thoughtfully, recognizing that in some instances, a seemingly innocuous emoji can hold legal significance beyond its appearance.