‘Like’ emoji is considered contract endorsement by the judge

In the legal world, a recent decision by the King’s Court in Saskatchewan, Canada, draws attention. A judge gave an unusual sentence and stated: the famous “like” emoji is as valid as the signature on contracts.

According to the judge, the interesting measure aims to adapt to the “new reality” of current communication, tough customs and legal norms. The case in question concerned a farmer and a grain buyer. sentenced to a sizable fine of C$82,000 (approximately R$300,000) for non-compliance with a contract.

In March 2021, South West Terminal, a grain purchasing company, sent customers a bulk text message announcing its intention to purchase 86 tonnes of flaxseed at C$17 (US$12.73) per bushel. Buyer Kent Mickleborough contacted farmer Chris Achter by phone and sent an image of the flaxseed delivery contract in November asking the farmer to verify the document by text.

To everyone’s surprise, Achter, a resident of the Swift Current community, responded with a thumbs up emoji. By November, however, the flaxseed had not been delivered, and the prices of the crop had already risen significantly.

Misinterpretation?

Thus began a legal battle focused on the interpretation of this seemingly innocent emoji. Mickleborough argued that the emoji indicates Achter’s consent to the terms of the contract by referring to old contracts approved via text messages. Achter, on the other hand, vehemently denied it was a digital signature, claiming that the emoji only signals receipt of the contract in the text message.

During the process, Achter’s lawyer defended his client against questions about the meaning of emoji, claiming that he was “not an expert in emojis”.. This argument underlined the complexity and the need to analyze the nuances of digital communication in the courts.

The case’s repercussions are already spreading around the world, as experts and laypersons debate heatedly about the challenges of interpreting emojis in the legal field. The Canadian judge’s decision could set an important precedent for the use of emoji in contracts and open up new avenues for communication in the legal world.