Last year, there were over 50 cases in the courts that required a judge to interpret more than just the facts at hand, but the meaning of emoticons or emojis.
According to The Verge between 2004 and 2019, there was a significant rise in cases that referenced either emoticons or emojis, with over 30 percent of those just happening last year.
Santa Clara University law professor, Eric Goldman, has been tracking these kinds of references and speculates there are more out there, with many more cases to come.
Goldman recommends in these cases that the judge has the lawyer state specifically what the client saw. This can arise when two different operating systems may see different depictions of the emoji. Another recommendation is the fact-finder actually sees them, and it's not just described.
Finally, the actual emojis should be displayed in the judge's court opinions.
Have you ever had to explain what an emoji meant to someone? Does texting leave too much up to personal interpretation?