The decision of the Munich Higher Regional Court of November 11, 2024 (ref.: 19 U 200/24 e) provides a remarkable insight into the role of emojis and WhatsApp messages in contract law. The focus was on the question of whether and how statements expressed using emojis should be legally interpreted, particularly with regard to the desire to be legally bound.
Facts: A high-priced car purchase and communication problems
The subject of the proceedings was a dispute over the repayment of a deposit of 59,500 euros for a Ferrari SF90 Stradale. After delays in delivery and failure to agree on new deadlines, both parties withdrew from the contract. Most of the communication between the parties took place via WhatsApp and involved the use of emojis, which became the subject of intense interpretation during the trial.
Legal issues: written form and the meaning of emojis
The Munich Higher Regional Court had to clarify several legal questions:
- Fulfillment of the written form through WhatsApp messages: According to § 127 Abs. 2 BGB the written form can be fulfilled by telecommunication transmission. The court found that WhatsApp messages can generally meet the written form requirements as long as they are permanently stored and reproducible. However, this does not apply to voice messages or videos.
- Interpretation of emojis as a declaration of intent: The court analyzed the use of various emojis in the context of the chat. According to the Higher Regional Court, emojis can be used to reinforce a statement as well as to represent emotions. The decisive factor is how a reasonable recipient could understand the message in good faith and taking into account common practice.
The OLG explains this in detail:
Declarations of intent can be made both expressly – orally or in written form – and implicitly – ie through coherent behavior. Messages sent via messenger service are electronically transmitted declarations of intent (…). Electronic declarations are also genuine declarations of intent (…). These are subject to the general rules of legal transactions.
The person making the declaration can express his will using signs (…), i.e. also through digital pictograms – such as emojis. These are often used to underline or reinforce a statement or to clarify the sense in which something is to be understood (e.g. ironically). In this function, emojis in digital discourse fulfill similar functions to intonation, gestures, facial expressions and other body language elements in real conversations (…). Sometimes words within a sentence are also replaced by an emoji. Whether the user of emojis wants to express a desire to be legally bound or simply communicate his mood or emotional state is a question of interpretation (…).
As symbols, emojis have possibilities for interpretation that should be used; However, only those that the recipient could understand play a role (…). Circumstances that were neither known nor recognizable to the recipient of the declaration are not taken into account (…). Factors such as nationality and native language, cultural background as well as age, gender or personality structure can influence both the use and understanding of emojis, with particularly clear differences between age groups (…). Emojis therefore pose a risk of misunderstandings and false conclusions because the specific symbols used may be based on a specific “emoji sociolect” that only exists within a certain group (…). To determine the meaning of emojis, the legal practitioner can, if necessary, consult emoji dictionaries (…)
Emojis and their meaning in specific cases
The court looked closely at three specific emojis:
- “Grimacing face” (😬): This emoji was interpreted as an expression of embarrassment or nervousness, but not as an agreement to an extension.
- “Thumbs up” (👍): Although this emoji often signals consent, the court found that here it referred to a different aspect of communication (confirmation of the order) and did not imply consent to extend the delivery time.
- “Grinning face with laughing eyes” (😄): This emoji was interpreted as an expression of general joy or hope, but not as consent to an extension of the deadline.
The court emphasized that the interpretation of emojis must always take into account the context of the entire communication and the apparent intentions of the parties.
The court’s comments in detail
β) Bearing in mind the above is the use of the emoji in the plaintiff’s WhatsApp message from September 23, 2021 should not be viewed as agreement with the defendant’s statement in the previous message: “Unfortunately, the SF 90 Stradale is slipping to the first half of 2022.”
Based on its use in the commonly used emoji dictionaries Emojipedia ( [abgerufen: 11.11.2024]) and Emojiterra ( [abgerufen: 11.11.2024]) stated meaning, the so-called “grimacing face” emoji (Unicode: U+1F62C) generally represents negative or tense emotions, especially nervousness, embarrassment, discomfort or embarrassment. It is neither stated nor otherwise apparent that the parties to the legal dispute – individually or because they belong to a particular social group – attached a different meaning to it. The specific context in which the emoji was used must also be taken into account. The expression “Oops” used by the plaintiff can at best be seen as an exclamation of surprise or astonishment; it is in no way associated with an affirmative statement. The plaintiff’s following statement doesn’t change that.
γ) The use of the emoji 
The message from the plaintiff on September 29, 2021 also does not have the meaning attributed to it by the defendant.
It is true that the so-called “thumbs up” emoji (Unicode: U+1F44D) – which is to be admitted to the defendant – regularly signals agreement, agreement or recognition when used physically, according to the emoji dictionaries given above and in accordance with the prevailing understanding of this gesture . However, the message clearly no longer referred to the defendant’s first message from September 23rd, 2021, but rather the conversation between the parties on September 28th and 29th, 2021 and this revolved around the circumstances of the binding nature of the order for the car and its configuration – and in no way the delivery date.
δ) Even the plaintiff WhatsApp message from January 27, 2022 using the emoji 
cannot be interpreted in the sense desired by the defendant.
The so-called “grinning face with laughing eyes” emoji (Unicode: U+1F604) usually has no clear meaning. According to emoji dictionaries, it often conveys general joy, happiness, a warm, positive mood or good-natured amusement, but can also convey pride or excitement.
It is also embedded in the following message:
“The first half of the year has started. 
“Any sign of life from Ferrari when the car can be expected?”
There is no evidence that this is intended to express that the plaintiff has now expressed his consent to an extension of the delivery deadline for the car until June 30, 2022. At best, the plaintiff can be recognized as an expression of unspecific anticipation or hope, and in no way even as an awareness of the plaintiff’s explanation.
Importance of the decision
The decision of the Munich Higher Regional Court provides important clarity:
- Legal binding nature of WhatsApp communication: WhatsApp messages can be legally binding, depending on the content and context. This is particularly true for text messages, but less so for other forms of media such as voice messages.
- Emojis in a legal context: Emojis can, under certain circumstances, represent a declaration of intent. However, their interpretation depends heavily on the context and surrounding circumstances.
- Willingness to be legally bound in the digital age: The decision highlights the need for careful communication when conducting business negotiations via digital channels, as misunderstandings can have significant legal consequences.
The Federal Court of Justice made it clear years ago that pictograms can have legal significance. In this respect, this is not a new finding – but an important decision in dealing with the legal meaning of everyday language, which includes emojis.
Pictograms offer the opportunity to present complex information in a way that is suitable for everyday use. They have long been an important tool, especially when it comes to quickly conveying information, but also using “simple language”. However, this must not distract from making clear statements when executing the contract – otherwise unnecessary disputes will arise.
Conclusion
The ruling of the Munich Higher Regional Court is definitely a milestone: It makes it clear in all the necessary depth that emojis are not only playful elements of communication, but can also play a serious role in the legal evaluation of declarations of intent. For companies and consumers alike, this is a wake-up call to make their digital communication more conscious and clear, at least in order to avoid disputes.
Pictograms, be they stylish symbols or colorful emojis, have long had legal meanings. But the principle also applies: the simpler, the shorter communication is in a business context, the more misleading it will be. Companies in particular should make sure to always choose clear words, even if we choose at a time when something like this can quickly seem harsh. But those who take clear positions avoid (expensive) misunderstandings.
Last articles by lawyer Jens Ferner (specialist lawyer for IT and criminal law) (Show all)
