The Economics of Everyday Things
EXTRA: Emoji and the Law
Host: Zachary Crockett
Guest: Eric Goldman, Professor of Law, Santa Clara University
Air Date: September 4, 2025
Episode Overview
This extra episode dives into the surprising and increasingly important role that emojis play in modern law. Host Zachary Crockett interviews Eric Goldman, a law professor and scholar of internet and tech law, who has become an expert in tracking how courts interpret and adjudicate the meaning and use of emoji. From copyright disputes to pivotal court verdicts—sometimes even involving a single emoji—the episode explores the evolving intersection of digital symbols and legal consequences.
Key Discussion Points and Insights
1. Copyrights, Trademarks, and Emoji Commerce
- The Unicode Consortium is responsible for approving new emojis and publishing recommendations for what they should look like. Device makers like Apple and Google then create their own emoji artwork, which they protect by copyright (03:06-03:50).
- Open source emoji sets (like Openmoji) allow for legal commercial use, and many products available online use these designs (04:01-04:19).
- Emojico and the "Emoji" Trademark:
- A company called Emojico holds trademarks for the word "emoji" across thousands of product categories.
- Emojico's strategy: They search for products using the word "emoji" in product descriptions (regardless of the emoji’s actual design or copyright status), file lawsuits with hundreds of defendants at once, and obtain court-ordered freezes of sellers’ Amazon accounts and funds—forcing many to settle out of necessity (04:37-06:05).
- Quote:
"Emojico is a licensing company that has obtained trademark registrations for the word emoji in thousands of different product areas... They do an Amazon search for the word emoji and then any product that references the word emoji, they just sue them." — Eric Goldman (04:37)
2. The Legal System's Approach to Emoji
- U.S. Courts as Interpreters:
- Courts are increasingly called to interpret emoji, especially as they become ubiquitous in digital communication.
- As of 2025, Goldman has tracked over 1,000 U.S. court cases involving emoji, with more than 300 new cases in 2024 alone (06:46-07:14).
- Emojis are Multifaceted:
- An emoji can substitute for words, add emphasis, or mean entirely different things depending on context (07:23-08:18).
- Quote:
"It might even be the exact same symbol, but performing different functions and at the same time. An interpreter, including a court, needs to be aware of the different interpretive functions and then to make sure that they're applying them properly." — Eric Goldman (08:18)
- Cross-Platform Confusion:
- Emoji appearances differ by device, causing potential misunderstandings between sender and receiver (08:48-09:15).
- Quote:
"The sender sees one face and the recipient sees a face with slightly different details. That’s a recipe for misunderstanding." — Eric Goldman (09:15)
3. Emoji in Legal Evidence and Court Decisions
- Emojis as Evidence:
- Emoji are increasingly displayed as evidence, sometimes prominently, and occasionally sway verdicts (10:27-10:46).
- Most Common Contexts:
- Early legal cases involving emoji often pertained to sexual predation, explicitly referencing emojis as evidence in chat logs (11:50-12:11).
- Classic Example—The Eggplant Emoji:
- Courts recognize that certain emojis (like 🍆) are used as sexual metaphors, not literal illustrations (12:17-13:08).
- Quote:
"No one ever uses the eggplant emoji as a vegetable... People are using the eggplant as a metaphor for the general category of sex. It's an easy conclusion for the courts. They're very good at understanding that an eggplant is not just an eggplant." — Eric Goldman (12:17)
- Emoji Forensics in Action:
- Example: In a sexual harassment case, the precise version of a Heart Eyes emoji in a chat screenshot was shown to be impossible for the device cited—proving fabrication and resulting in the plaintiff losing the case (13:18-14:56).
- Quote:
"What the defendant did is what I call emoji forensics. They were looking at the depiction of the emoji as a way of carbon dating the item and showing her story could not possibly be true." — Eric Goldman (14:56)
4. Emoji in Finance and Contracts
- Meme Stocks and the Moon (🌝):
- Investors scrutinize the use of emojis in public figures' social posts for perceived coded messages about stocks (especially meme stocks like Bed Bath & Beyond), sometimes leading to lawsuits (15:16-16:36).
- Quote:
"In the meme stock community, the moonface emoji might be a coded reference to suggest this stock is going to the moon." — Eric Goldman (16:01)
- The Contentious Thumbs Up (👍):
- Central legal question: Does a thumbs up emoji mean “I acknowledge” or “I agree”?
- Case 1: Canada — Contract Law
- Farmer responded to a contract offer with 👍, buyer sued when seller reneged. Court ruled the emoji constituted contract acceptance, leading to damages for the seller (17:18-18:33).
- Case 2: U.S. — Parental Custody
- Parent responded with 👍 in messages about custody; court ruled it only acknowledged the message without granting consent (18:38-19:32).
- Goldman's Analysis:
"We have two different outcomes with a thumbs up emoji. And I think both... were right. In the case of something like child custody... it makes total sense that the courts would reach different outcomes." — Eric Goldman (19:32)
5. Context, Gesture, and the Future
- Body Language vs. Digital Symbols:
- Unlike physical gestures, emojis lack context like facial expression, tone, or intent—so courts must rely on surrounding evidence (19:45-20:17).
- Beyond Emoji: Evolution of Digital Communication:
- Anticipation of new forms: Memojis, Animojis, GIFs, memes, etc., will continue to challenge courtrooms (20:22-20:56).
- Quote:
"There's going to be additional iterations of ways that we can express ourselves online that are going to eventually eclipse emojis in my mind." — Eric Goldman (20:56)
Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments
-
On Emojico's trademark tactics:
"It's like the old protection rackets that we would joke about with the mob. You know, it'd be a shame if anything happened to your business, but you can pay me so that nothing bad will happen." — Eric Goldman (06:10)
-
On emoji’s legal weight:
"Use emojis, use them smartly. Recognize that like the words we pick, like the hand gestures we make and the facial expression we make, they all have legal consequences. But don't allow that to inhibit the beauty of human communication." — Eric Goldman (20:59)
-
On personal use:
"Yeah. My kids will laugh at me every single time." — Eric Goldman, on his continued use of 👍 (21:24)
-
Crockett’s reflection on legal nuance:
"We don't have to talk about these cases in like, excruciating detail or anything, but…" (21:31)
"I'm sorry, you're talking to a law professor, so excruciating detail kind of comes with the territory." — Eric Goldman (21:54)
Timestamps for Key Segments
- [01:25] Content warning; introduction of Eric Goldman
- [02:35–04:37] Emoji copyright and Emojico’s trademark strategy
- [06:46–08:18] How courts track and interpret the meaning of emoji
- [09:10–09:25] Cross-platform emoji confusion
- [11:50–13:08] Emoji as evidence in sexual predation cases, the eggplant emoji
- [13:18–14:56] Emoji forensics (Heart Eyes case)
- [15:16–16:36] Emoji, meme stocks, and securities lawsuits
- [16:43–19:32] The thumbs up—contract v. acknowledgment
- [20:22–20:56] The future: memojis, GIFs, and next-gen digital symbols
- [20:59–21:24] Personal takeaways and Goldman's advice on emoji use
Takeaway
The episode reveals that our digital shorthand—whether it’s a 👍, 🍆, or 🌝—can have wide-reaching legal implications, sometimes amounting to contractual agreements or evidence of intent. Courts are adapting to these new forms of expression, but ambiguity, technology, and evolving norms mean that context is everything. As communication continues to shift toward symbols and memes, the law will keep racing to interpret—and sometimes catch up with—what we really mean when we click “send.”