A farmer in Saskatchewan, Canada was fined over $61,000 after failing to fulfill a contract the Court ruled he accepted via the thumbs-up emoji.

According to the BBC (Farmer fined $61,000 for using thumbs-up emoji, written by Nadine Yousif and available here), the matter came to court after farmer Chris Achter failed to deliver 86 tonnes of flax that grain buyer Kent Mickleborough was looking to purchase in 2021, prompting Mickleborough to take legal action.

Mickleborough said he spoke with Achter on the phone about his potential purchase, saying he was looking to buy the grain in November that year.

He then texted the farmer a draft of a contract, writing “please confirm flax contract”.

Achter responded with a “thumbs-up” emoji but did not deliver the flax by the date specified.

Mickleborough said that he had a long-standing business relationship with Achter, and that the farmer had agreed to contracts via text message in the past, prompting him to believe the emoji had sealed the deal.

But according to his sworn affidavit, Achter said the thumbs-up emoji “simply confirmed that I received the flax contract. It was not a confirmation that I agreed with the terms”.

In a Court of King’s Bench ruling released in June, Justice Timothy Keene sided with Mickleborough.

He leaned on a Dictionary.com definition of the emoji, which states that “it is used to express assent, approval or encouragement in digital communications”.

“I am not sure how authoritative that is but this seems to comport with my understanding from my everyday use – even as a latecomer to the world of technology,” Justice Keene wrote.

He added that while a signature is the “classic representation” of confirming someone’s identity, that does not prevent an individual from using modern-day methods – like emojis – to confirm a contract, and that an emoji can be used 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’“, he said – to identify the signatory, which is done using Mr. Achter’s cell phone number, and to convey acceptance of the contract.

“I agree that this case is novel (at least in Saskatchewan), but nevertheless this Court cannot (nor should it) attempt to stem the tide of technology and common usage,” the judge concluded.

As a result, Achter must now pay C$82,000 ($61,610; £48,310) for failing to fulfill the contract.

So, what do you think? Thumbs-up or thumbs-down on this ruling? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by my employer, my partners or my clients. eDiscovery Today is made available solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Today should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.