A Canadian judge has ruled that the popular “thumbs up” emoji can not only be used as a contractual agreement, but is just as valid as an actual signature. The Saskatchewan-based judge made the ruling on the grounds that courts need to adapt to the “new reality” of the way people communicate, as originally reported by The Guardian.
The case involved a grain buyer who sent bulk texts to lure customers and a farmer who agreed to sell 86 tons of flax for around $13 a bushel. The buyer texted the farmer a contract agreement and asked him to “confirm” receipt of the contract. He showed a “thumbs up” emoji as a receipt for the document, but went out of business after flax prices rose.
The buyer sued the farmer, saying the thumbs-up meant more than just receiving the contract. It represented agreement to the terms of the contract, and a judge agreed, ordering the farmer to spit out nearly $62,000, likely causing a slew of puke emojis.
The farmer, Chris Achter, said in an affidavit that he “didn’t have time to review the contract” and that the thumbs-up was just an acknowledgment of receipt. Judge Timothy Keene relied on Dictionary.com’s definition of the emoji, which says the image is used to “express approval, approval or encouragement in digital communications, particularly in Western cultures,” and ultimately sided with the grain buyer.
“This court readily recognizes that a 👍 emoji is a non-traditional means of ‘signing’ a document, but in the circumstances it was still a valid means of conveying the dual purposes of a ‘signature,'” wrote Judge Keene.
The defense argued that conferring that kind of power on one emoji would “open the floodgates” for enhanced interpretations of other emoji. While the judiciary dismissed this argument, anyone who regularly writes the LOL emoji without really laughing out loud should be shaking their boots right now.