The news that at the beginning of last June a Canadian court ruled that the thumbs up emoji is as valid as signing a contract opens a new big chapter for discussion for the Justice which is called upon to respond and judge digital data technology which are now part of our everyday life.
Can the well-known emoji with the raised thumb, which we have all sent in the context of the exchange of messages, really replace our signature in the future and even bind us legally in the context of important agreements?
The answer, at least for now, is far from certain. However, the issuance of this first decision, which goes beyond the traditional frameworks of the judicial crisis, apart from the impressions it causes, can also be the basis for starting a wider discussion about the attitude of the judiciary in the face of the wave of technology.
It is a valid way
This was also the reasoning behind the judicial officer in Canada’s approach to the present unusual case, recognizing in advance that an emoji is not a traditional means of “signing” a document. However, it concluded that it is a valid way of signing a contract, finding that the thumbs-up emoji can be used to form contracts, stressing that the court “cannot (and should not) try to stem the tide of technology”.
“This seems to be the new reality in Canadian society and the courts should be ready to meet the new challenges that may arise from the use of emoji,” notes the Canadian judge in the reasoning of his decision, apparently wanting to send his own his message. He also rejected the objections-concerns raised in the context of the dispute that with his interpretation of the emoji in question, he “opens the floodgates” for new interpretations of other emojis, such as the fist or the handshake.
It is worth noting that the judge also refers to the jurisprudence of his country referring to decisions that have judged that “clicking” on the “I agree” icon was considered to be equivalent to an electronic signature. In this light the said judge held that there is authority for the use of e-mail and the use of electronic signatures without liquid ink to identify the person signing and to demonstrate the person’s approval of the content of the document, although the data which he placed in the scales of justice were unique.
For the record, let us mention that the case concerned the conclusion of a contract for the purchase and sale of grain. The seller responded to one of the prospective buyer’s messages with the well-known thumbs-up emoji, but did not deliver the ordered amount of grain in time, the price of which had risen in the meantime.
As expected, the seller disputed the meaning of the particular emoji, but the buyer produced previous contracts confirmed by text message, arguing that the emoji meant the counterparty agreed to the terms of the contract.
“I deny that the thumbs-up emoji is a digital signature of an incomplete contract,” the seller argued in an affidavit, further noting that he did not have time to review the contract and merely wanted to indicate that he received the message. However, the judgment of the court was indeed subversive even by international standards.
