Podcast Summary: 99% Invisible — Episode 😅⚖️

Release Date: May 6, 2025

Host: Roman Mars

Introduction: The Intersection of Emojis and Contract Law

In this episode of 99% Invisible, host Roman Mars delves into the increasingly complex relationship between emojis and the legal system. As emojis become a ubiquitous part of digital communication, their ambiguous nature poses new challenges for courts interpreting contractual agreements and other legal matters.

The Saskatchewan Thumbs Up Case

[00:47] Roman Mars introduces a pivotal case from 2021 involving Chris Auchter, a farmer in Saskatchewan, and a buyer interested in purchasing his flax. The crux of the dispute revolves around the interpretation of a simple thumbs up emoji used in their contract negotiations.

Eric Goldman, a law professor at Santa Clara University Law School, explains the background:

[00:47] Eric Goldman: "And they've dealt with each other before. They've formed contracts before."

As Talyn Stradley, a producer, adds:

[01:22] Talyn Stradley: "That year there was a drought and the flax harvest was smaller than many farmers expected. As the supply of flax went down, its price went up."

The disagreement arose when Chris responded to the buyer's standard contract offer with a thumbs up emoji. The buyer interpreted this as agreement to the contract, while Chris intended it merely as an acknowledgment of receipt.

Eric Goldman clarifies:

[02:15] Eric Goldman: "The seller, explaining the thumbs up emoji, says, I was just acknowledging receipt. I wasn't agreeing to the terms."

This misunderstanding led the buyer to sue Chris for breach of contract, seeking approximately $62,000 in damages, based on the court's interpretation of the thumbs up emoji as a legally binding signature.

Emojis in the Legal System: A Growing Challenge

The Saskatchewan case isn't isolated. Eric Goldman highlights the surge in legal encounters involving emojis:

[04:33] Eric Goldman: "And I'm keeping a running log of those cases now. Over a thousand opinions that have used the term emoji or emoticon somewhere in their opinions."

From corporate settings, where emojis have been used to authorize millions in expenses, to personal disputes on social media leading to defamation suits, emojis are increasingly making their way into legal arguments.

The Nuances and Evolution of Emoji Meanings

Adam Alexik, a linguist specializing in Gen Z slang, emphasizes the dynamic nature of emoji meanings:

[05:35] Adam Alexik: "I don't think they're different from words? I think they're the exact same thing as words."

Emojis serve not just as replacements for words but also as tone tags, conveying the sentiment behind a message. Their meanings can vary widely across different demographics and cultures, adding layers of complexity to their interpretation in legal contexts.

Talyn Stradley further explains:

[06:14] Talyn Stradley: "It could be a tone tag for older people saying, 'I had a great time,' but it could be a tone tag for younger people saying, 'I'm joking. This is a sarcastic thumbs up. I did not have a great time.'"

Platform Variations and Technical Challenges

A significant issue arises from how different platforms render the same emoji. The gun emoji serves as a prime example:

Talyn Stradley details:

[10:20] Talyn Stradley: "The pistol is an especially chaotic example... the direction a gun is pointed is pretty important to the meaning of a message."

Emojis like the gun can appear differently on Apple, Android, Meta, Slack, and X (formerly Twitter), leading to potential misinterpretations in legal settings. This inconsistency complicates courts' ability to accurately assess the intended message.

Unicode and the Standardization Struggle

Unicode is responsible for standardizing emojis across platforms by assigning each emoji a unique ID. However, Talyn Stradley points out the limitations:

[13:33] Talyn Stradley: "Unicode doesn't really have any power to enforce this standardization. There are no emoji inspectors, no emoji cops."

Despite Unicode's efforts, companies prioritize branding and avoid copyright infringement by customizing their emoji designs, resulting in diverse interpretations that challenge legal consistency.

Training the Legal System to Handle Emojis

Given the complexities, Eric Goldman advocates for comprehensive training for legal professionals:

[14:58] Eric Goldman: "Emoji depictions should always come in at least pairs. What did the sender see and what did the recipient see?"

By understanding both the sender's and recipient's perspectives, courts can better interpret the intended meaning behind emojis, ensuring more accurate legal judgments.

Keith Houston on the Poop Emoji: History and Impact

The episode features Keith Houston, an author exploring the history of emojis, particularly the poop emoji.

Origins in Japanese Culture:

[20:33] Keith Houston: "In Japanese, the term 'unshi' has connotations of sort of good luck, even though it literally means poop."

Design Evolution:

[23:15] Keith Houston: "There are two flavors of the poop emoji. The smiling poop emoji descended from KDDI, while the faceless version came from J-Phone."

Popularity and Controversy: Despite being the least popular emoji across generations, the poop emoji has become emblematic of the emoji language, transcending its initial novelty to become a cultural symbol. However, it has faced backlash, leading to debates within the Unicode Consortium about its appropriateness and variations.

Conclusion: Navigating the Future of Emojis in Law

Emojis represent a significant evolution in human communication, blending visual symbols with linguistic expression. As their usage continues to permeate digital interactions, the legal system must adapt to interpret these symbols accurately. Through comprehensive training and standardized practices, courts can better navigate the nuanced world of emojis, ensuring that digital communication remains fair and legally coherent.

Produced by Talyn Stradley, 99% Invisible continues to explore the hidden designs shaping our world.