Key Takeaways
- Courts interpret emojis together with the surrounding words, so emojis do not give a sender special deniability.
- Gun, knife, or bomb emojis can help turn a critical message into a threat of violence, though prosecutors must also show the sender was at least reckless about how it would be understood.
- A thumbs-up or similar emoji can signal agreement to a deal, and at least one court has enforced a contract accepted that way.
Who doesn't love emojis? They add tone and fun to texts and posts. But can the little pictures you add to a message create legal liability?
In this TalksOnLaw Brief, Eric Goldman, Associate Dean for Research and Professor of Law at Santa Clara University School of Law, who has written and spoken widely on emojis and the law, explains why the answer is yes, and why emojis can carry the same legal weight as the words around them.
No Special Deniability
Professor Goldman says one issue he often encounters is that people assume they will not be liable for the emojis they choose, as if emojis were somehow different from the statements they make and gave them plausible deniability. That is not how it works. When disputes arise over what someone said online, he explains, courts look at the words, look at the symbols included with them, and interpret them all together.
When Emojis Become Threats
He offers a criminal law example. A post saying "I really hate the police" would not, on its own, be actionable. But if the message starts to sound like a threat against police officers and is paired with gun, bomb, and knife emojis, those emojis will be read in the context of the words to decide whether the person threatened violence. Adding weapons emojis to disparaging comments about the police, he explains, could have legal consequences the words alone would not.
When Emojis Make a Deal
Emojis can also create commitments. Professor Goldman describes friends chatting about a transaction, such as one offering to sell a car or a TV set and asking whether you are interested. If you reply with a thumbs-up to say you are interested, that can be a legally binding contract; you have committed to the purchase by the way you expressed your intent. Whether you use an emoji, say "yes, I agree to buy this," or sign a piece of paper is immaterial. A symbol expressing enthusiasm for the proposal can be enough to constitute a commitment the law will recognize.
So should you keep using emojis despite the legal consequences? Absolutely, he says. Emojis are fun. Just do not treat them as a special class of content; treat them as carrying the same potentially binding obligations as the words you choose. Online, mean what you say and say what you mean.
What to Know Now
Courts continue to treat emojis as part of the message. In 2023, a Saskatchewan court in South West Terminal Ltd. v. Achter Land & Cattle Ltd. held that a farmer's thumbs-up reply to a photographed grain contract formed a binding agreement, and the province's Court of Appeal affirmed in 2024 over a dissent. Whether an emoji forms a contract still depends on context, including the parties' past dealings and whether the reply shows intent to be bound rather than mere receipt. On threats, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Counterman v. Colorado (2023) that the First Amendment requires proof that the speaker consciously disregarded a substantial risk that the communication would be viewed as threatening violence. That makes the speaker's state of mind part of the analysis, alongside the words and emojis a court reads together. Professor Goldman's practical advice still fits: choose emojis with the same care you choose words.
