From Paper to Pixels: Do Emojis Count as Electronic Signatures?

Traditional communication methods are a thing of the past. With instant access to email, social media, text messages, websites, and video calls, digital communication is now the primary way individuals and organizations connect. In this digital age, emojis have become a key form of expression. Traditional contracts, once reliant on handwritten signatures, have now expanded to include electronic signatures under federal and state law. But can a simple thumbs-up emoji or smiley face be seen as legally binding consent in a contractual agreement? Recent legal trends suggest that in certain circumstances, the answer may be yes. Producers should be aware of the potential legal risks emojis pose when negotiating a contract through digital communications.

Legal Landscape of Electronic Signatures

• Federal E-Sign Act: The Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act (“E-Sign Act”), enacted in 2000, ensures that electronic records and signatures are legally valid, provided they meet certain requirements. The law explicitly states that electronic contracts and signatures cannot be denied enforceability solely because they are digital. Under the E-Sign Act, an electronic signature is broadly defined as any “electronic sound, symbol, or process” associated with a contract and executed with intent.
• Ohio’s UETA: Ohio has adopted the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (“UETA”), which complements the E-Sign Act and provides additional guidance on electronic contracts within the state. UETA establishes that electronic signatures and records hold the same legal validity as their paper counterparts (with limited exceptions), as long as both parties have agreed to conduct transactions electronically. Like the E-Sign Act, UETA does not explicitly address emojis. However, given its broad definition of electronic signatures, emojis could qualify if used with the intent to agree to contract terms. 
• Industry Standards: Additionally, certain industries may have standards that deal with digital communications. For example, within the grain trade, a responsive emoji texted to a purchaser might be deemed sufficient “confirmation” under the National Grain and Feed Association’s (“NGFA”) Grain Trade Rules. These rules require written confirmation, which can be sent via postal mail, courier, or electronic means. Since the rules do not expressly exclude emojis as a form of electronic communication, their validity remains an open question.  

Judicial Treatment of Emojis and Digital Communications in Contract Law
While Ohio courts have yet to issue a definitive ruling on emojis as contractual acceptance, there is case law that addresses the issue of digital communications and the use of emojis to create a legally enforceable contract. 

• International Case Law: Although not a binding legal precedent, a notable case outside the U.S. has gained international attention. In South West Terminal Ltd. v. Achter Land & Cattle Ltd., the court addressed whether a farmer’s thumbs-up emoji in response to a contract image constituted acceptance. The court ruled that a legally binding contract was formed and held the farmer liable for breach. (See our original post on the South West case here). In December, a Canadian appellate court upheld this decision, finding that Achter Land & Cattle intended to enter into a contract with South West Terminal and that both parties had communicated and agreed upon the essential terms.
• U.S. Case Law: While no U.S. case law directly addresses whether a contract can be formed by the use of emojis as the court does in the South West case, there are examples of U.S. courts interpreting digital communications and the use of emojis within other traditional legal frameworks.
  • CX Digital Media, Inc. v. Smoking Everywhere, Inc.: The court held that an instant message exchange effectively modified a contract that contained a “no-oral modification clause.” 
  • In RE Bed Bath & Beyond Corporation Securities Litigation: The court ruled that a “full moon face” emoji contained within a tweet could plausibly mislead stockholders and could be a securities violation in some contexts.  
  • Lightstone Re LLC v. Zinntex LLC: The court determined that a factual dispute remained as to whether a thumbs-up emoji constituted a valid contract, preventing it from granting summary judgment on that basis (though summary judgment was granted for the plaintiff on other grounds). The court acknowledged that “even if such an electronic signature in the form of an emoji can create a valid contract, there still must be a meeting of the minds and an intent to be so bound.” 
  • Battle Axe Construction, LLC v. Hafner & Sons, Inc.: An Ohio court ruled that a series of emails met the requirements of Ohio’s Statute of Frauds, which requires certain contracts to be in writing.
  • N. Side Bank & Trust Co. v. Trinity Aviation, L.L.C.: An Ohio court determined that a series of emails between the parties included the necessary elements to form a legally enforceable contract.

What does this all mean? 
In summary, there is no clear answer (either in Ohio or nationwide) on whether an emoji can serve as an electronic signature and signify acceptance of a contract. However, as can be seen from the list of cases above, there is legal precedent establishing that digital communications can create a legally enforceable contract. 

If the issue of whether an emoji qualifies as an electronic signature arises, Ohio courts will likely consider the broad definition of electronic signatures under federal and state law. They will also evaluate the context of the digital communication between the parties, assessing whether all elements of contract formation are present and whether a party intended to accept the contract by sending an emoji.

How should you manage your digital communications?
Although digital communications and contracting are legally recognized, using emojis as evidence of contract formation remains challenging. Emojis can be ambiguous and open to interpretation. For instance, the fire emoji might signal excitement in one context but destruction in another. One party may interpret it as confirmation of a contract, while the other may intend it as a rejection of negotiations. This type of ambiguity will continue to pose an ongoing issue if emojis are allowed to be used as electronic signatures.

To help minimize the risk of misinterpretation when negotiating contracts digitally, consider these best practices: 

• Avoid emojis – While it may seem simple, refraining from using emojis helps prevent confusion over contract formation and reduces the risk of an emoji being interpreted as an electronic signature, lowering the chances of disputes or litigation. 
• Clarify intent if emojis are used – If the other party includes emojis in negotiations, follow up to ensure their intent is clear and unambiguous. Additionally, consider finalizing digital negotiations with a formal written contract.
• Establish employer guidelines – Employers should implement internal policies outlining how employees engage in contractual discussions via text, email, or social media to ensure clarity and consistency.

Final Thoughts 
As digital communication evolves, so too will legal interpretations regarding its use. The federal E-Sign Act and Ohio’s UETA provide a robust framework for recognizing electronic agreements, and courts may uphold emojis as valid expressions of contractual intent under the right circumstances. Nevertheless, the safest approach remains to use traditional contractual language alongside any digital expressions. When in doubt, always put it in writing—words continue to reign supreme in contract law.