Deciphering emoji variation in courts: a social semiotic perspective

The paper investigates how emojis—widely used digital symbols originating in Japan—are interpreted in legal contexts and how miscommunication stemming from their variability brings them into courtrooms. Prior scholarship shows emoji usage is variable across time, cultures, platforms, genders and ages, which can foster both expressiveness and ambiguity. Courts, however, require clarity and thus face interpretive challenges when emojis appear as evidence. This study focuses on Chinese and US judicial contexts because users of major messaging apps are concentrated in these jurisdictions, their legal systems and cultures differ markedly, and emojis have become critical evidence in China. Adopting a social semiotic approach, the study asks: (1) what variations in emoji usage and interpretation appear in court judgments; and (2) what social, cultural and legal contexts explain these variations.

Prior work treats emojis as semiotic resources whose meanings are contextually flexible and variable (e.g., Danesi 2016, 2021; Cheng et al. 2020; Wagner et al. 2020a). Identified dimensions include cross-cultural and nation-based variation, visual rendering differences, and individual variation, all contributing to misunderstandings. In legal settings, courts grapple with whether to admit emoji evidence, how to present actual renderings, and how to interpret them. Some judges recognize high evidentiary value (e.g., Silk Road case), while others exclude or minimize emojis (e.g., Kinsey v. State). Scholars recommend displaying the precise emoji as seen by communicants to avoid rendering discrepancies across platforms and time. The rise of emojis in litigation motivates "emoji forensics" to assess meanings and uses in criminal and civil cases, with particular attention to aggressive or threatening emojis. Interpretation must consider communicative function, co-text (words and emoji strings), broader situational context, and cross-platform variability. Social semiotics provides a framework to analyze how and why these signs vary and evolve within social and cultural practices.

The study conducts a qualitative, empirically oriented content analysis of court judgments from China and the United States referencing emojis. Chinese judgments were retrieved from China Judgments Online using the keywords 表情符号 (emojis) and 微信表情 (WeChat emojis). US cases were retrieved from WestLaw using the keywords "emoji" and "emoticon." The time window spans from the first emoji-related case in each database through 12/31/2021, yielding 955 Chinese cases and 475 US cases. Supplementary data include direct observations of emoji use in daily life and findings from prior studies to enrich contextual understanding. Analysis proceeded in two steps: (1) close reading to identify contexts where emojis appear (as IP dispute subjects; as parts of user nicknames; and as content of digital communications, with focus on the last where emojis serve as evidence); (2) qualitative categorization of situational variations in interpretation into six types: platform variation (devices, OS, software, clients), temporal variation, variation across case types with differing evidentiary rules, individual participant variation, social group variation, and linguistic–cultural variation. Categorization was guided by Biber’s (1994) register framework (participants, relations, setting, channel, purposes, topic). Due to space limits, the study purposively selected representative cases for each variation type rather than exhaustively analyzing all judgments.

• Six categories of variation shape emoji interpretation in courts:

1. Platform variation (devices, OS, software, clients): Emojis can render differently or not at all across platforms, altering meaning and evidentiary value. Examples include: a water pistol vs. revolver rendering across platforms (People ex rel. R.D.); emojis appearing as number strings (Scissors Co. v. Liao) due to proprietary emoji incompatibility; messages visible to sender but not delivered/visible to recipient (Xie v. Liu) undermining assent evidence; OS version mismatches revealing fabrication (Rossbach v. Montefiore Medical Center). Program and client differences (desktop vs. mobile) can change color/shape or even replace designs over time (e.g., Tencent’s change from cigarette to leaf/relaxed face for “at ease”).
2. Temporal variation: Emoji designs evolve (e.g., gun emoji redesigns; Tencent’s 2021 removal of a cigar element), and OS version availability timestamps can authenticate or impeach digital evidence (Rossbach).
3. Variation across cases with different evidentiary rules (formality/explicitness): Courts may discount emoji-bearing messages as too casual to meet statutory standards. In Bardales v. Lamothe, a thumbs-up in casual texts did not satisfy the Hague Convention’s formal acquiescence requirement. In Chinese private lending disputes (Zhang v. Yan and Jia), a 👍 reply was insufficient to show binding approval under rules requiring proof of actual loan transfer.
4. Individual participant variation (plaintiffs, defendants, judges): Senders/recipients dispute meanings of polysemous emojis (e.g., 👍 as assent vs. politeness in Daoyi Co. v. Liu; ☀️ as lease renewal acceptance in Zhizhou v. Pinyue). Judges vary in assigning evidentiary weight (e.g., exclusion or non-interpretation in Chen v. Wang; Elonis v. United States; People v. George) and in interpretive approach: semantic vs. pragmatic (contrast between lower and appellate rulings in State v. D.R.C.).
5. Social group variation: Specific communities repurpose emojis as code/jargon (e.g., prostitution and gambling in China: ☕ for client arrival, 🌹 for satisfaction/payment, 🚔 for police nearby, 🙂 for service end/reimbursement, 🎲 for seating; drug trade in US: ❄️/☃️ for cocaine, 🚀/🔥 for potency, 🎱 for weight, 🎒 for price). Expert testimony tied emoji use to criminal intent (Johnson v. State: 🔥 implying high potency and awareness of danger).
6. Linguistic–cultural variation: Cultural knowledge shapes metaphorical meanings. In China, 🐍 and 🐀 combined with 一窝 evoke the idiom 蛇鼠一窝 (derogatory collusion). In the US, 🐀 can mean a snitch (People v. Smith), a sense not typical in Chinese usage. Monkey and banana emojis can constitute racist hate symbols in the US (Taylor Dumpson v. Ade et al.), whereas monkeys carry positive/naughty connotations in Chinese culture.

• Overall, emoji meanings are context- and interpreter-dependent; exact visual renderings and timing matter for authentication and interpretation; legal context (case type, evidentiary standards) critically conditions admissibility and weight.

The findings answer the research questions by cataloging systematic sources of variance in emoji interpretation and explaining them through the lens of social semiotics. Emojis function as dynamic signs whose meanings emerge from interactions among designers, platforms, users, and legal actors. Rendering differences and temporal changes underscore the need to present the exact emoji as perceived by parties and to authenticate via platform/OS timestamps. Case-type-specific evidentiary standards (formality, explicitness) can eclipse semantic debates over emoji meanings, guiding courts’ admissibility and weight determinations. Variation among individuals (including judges) highlights the importance of interpretive approach: pragmatic, context-sensitive analysis can better recover communicative intent than purely semantic readings, as illustrated by State v. D.R.C. Social group codifications and cultural metaphors demonstrate that shared community knowledge and broader socio-cultural contexts are indispensable for decoding emojis’ intended meanings. These insights are practically relevant for judicial decision-making, evidentiary authentication, and investigative strategies (e.g., leveraging cultural/community expertise).

The study offers a cross-jurisdictional, systematic account of emoji variation in courts and foregrounds China’s underexplored judicial practices. It shows that emoji meaning varies with platforms, time, evidentiary rules, individual interpreters, social groups, and cultures—an ensemble of semiotic encounters that constrain interpretation. It argues for pragmatic, context-rich interpretations aligned with social semiotics, urges presentation of original emoji renderings, and emphasizes authentication using temporal and platform cues. Practical implications include clarifying when digital evidence should be prioritized or subordinated, encouraging issuance of guiding cases (e.g., by China’s SPC) on digital evidence including emojis, and safeguarding authenticity, integrity, and originality during investigation and trial. Future research should extend analysis to additional contextual factors (e.g., gender and age) known to influence emoji use and interpretation.

The analysis is qualitative and purposive rather than exhaustive: not all 955 Chinese and 475 US cases are displayed or analyzed in detail due to space constraints. Emoji renderings and meanings are fluid over time and across platforms, making comprehensive categorization inherently incomplete. The study relies on supplementary observations and secondary sources to contextualize some variations, and certain variation types lacked direct case examples within the corpus (e.g., software program differences), drawing instead on prior research.