A farmer in Saskatchewan, Canada has been issued a substantial fine for utilizing an emoji in a text message, after which he was sent a contract. Chris Achter argued that he used the emoji simply to acknowledge receipt, but a judge determined that it constituted a contractual agreement. Consequently, he is now required to pay C$82,000 ($61,610; £48,310) for failing to fulfill the terms of the contract.

The matter was brought to court when Mr. Achter failed to deliver 86 tonnes of flax that grain buyer Kent Mickleborough intended to purchase in 2021, leading Mr. Mickleborough to take legal action. Mr. Mickleborough claimed that he had discussed the potential purchase with Mr. Achter over the phone, expressing his interest in buying the grain in November of that year. Subsequently, he sent a draft of the contract to the farmer via text message, requesting him to confirm the flax contract.

In response, Mr. Achter replied with a “thumbs-up” emoji but failed to deliver the flax within the specified timeframe. Mr. Mickleborough argued that he had a longstanding business relationship with Mr. Achter, who had previously agreed to contracts via text message, leading him to believe that the emoji signified a binding agreement.

However, according to Mr. Achter’s sworn affidavit, the thumbs-up emoji “merely confirmed that I received the flax contract. It was not a confirmation that I agreed with the terms.” In a groundbreaking ruling by the Court of King’s Bench, released in June of this year, Justice Timothy Keene sided with Mr. Mickleborough.

Justice Keene relied on a definition of the emoji from Dictionary.com, which states that it is used to express assent, approval, or encouragement in digital communications. He noted that while he was uncertain of its authoritative nature, it aligned with his understanding based on his everyday use of technology, despite being a late adopter. The judge emphasized that while a signature is the traditional representation of confirming someone’s identity, it does not preclude the use of modern methods, such as emojis, to validate a contract. He concluded that an emoji can serve as a digital signature.

“This court readily acknowledges that a thumbs-up emoji is a non-traditional means to ‘sign’ a document,” Justice Keene wrote. “But nevertheless, under these circumstances, this was a valid way to convey the two purposes of a ‘signature'”: to identify the signatory, which was accomplished using Mr. Achter’s cell phone number, and to indicate acceptance of the contract.

The judge acknowledged that the case was unprecedented in Saskatchewan but expressed the court’s inability and unwillingness to impede the progress of technology and common usage.