Understanding the Link Between Emojis and Compliance Risks

In a Bloomberg Law article, Robert Pommer and Josh Newville of Proskauer examine the growing evidentiary role of emojis in litigation and enforcement actions, as well as the resulting connection between emojis and compliance risks. 

Once seen as harmless shorthand, emojis now regularly appear in discovery, investigations, and even courtroom exhibits, where they can help prove intent, misrepresentation, or misconduct.

Courts are increasingly treating emojis as admissible evidence, although their meanings depend heavily on context. In securities litigation, judges have ruled that emojis such as , , and can imply an “expectation of profits,” satisfying a key element of the Howey test for determining whether digital assets qualify as securities. Plaintiffs in “meme stock” cases have also argued that emojis like (“going to the moon”) or (“diamond hands”) suggest specific investment intentions. However, not all courts accept these interpretations, as illustrated by a ruling in the Genius Brands litigation, where the use of fireworks emojis did not render a CEO’s post misleading.

Pommer and Newville also note that prosecutors have used emojis in insider trading and fraud cases, such as representing a company name or signaling business approval. While these symbols may seem trivial, they can expose firms to record-keeping violations and reputational damage.

For compliance teams, the takeaway is clear: every digital message, including emojis, can be considered evidence. Training should reinforce professionalism, contextual awareness, and caution before sending any electronic communication. In the modern workplace, even a simple emoji can carry significant compliance risk.