A federal court judge ruled that these emojis are financial advice

A shocking amount of people in the twitter thread are writing this off as if it's completely silly. I don't see why. Those emojis very clearly and obviously make an implication that the price will go "to the moon", or that the chart will look just like the emoji of a chart going up. Especially when you say right next to it "this is just the start". It's no different than saying "the price is rising and you need to get in now".

Courts aren't stupid. They understand how human language works. It's still financial advice whether or not you use emojis to communicate it.

Communications in question:

  {crown}ALL HAIL!{crown}

  @pranksyNFT scooped up this Legendary LeBron James Moment from our Cosmic Series 1 set for $49,000 {rocket}{rocket}{rocket}

  That is a new record-setting acquisition for any NBA Top Shot Moment on the marketplace ... so far {stock chart}{stock chart}{stock chart}

And

  50K+ packs purchased last 36 hours {rocket}
  $450K+ marketplace sales last 24 hours {stock chart}
  $2M+ marketplace transactions over last week {stock chart}
  $10M+ sales in beta {money bag}

  #NBATopShot is just getting started {fire}{fire}{fire}

Court opinion:

  Each Tweet promotes a recent sale or statistics of recent sales of Moments on the Marketplace. And although the literal word "profit" is not included in any of the Tweets, the "rocket ship" emoji, "stock chart" emoji, and "money bags" emoji objectively mean one thing: a financial return on investment.

https://twitter.com/LisaBraganca/status/1628868431696068608

I don't find myself disagreeing with the court on this one.

The courts aren't stupid. I always find it funny when people say "it's easy, instead of saying I'll sell you marijuana, I'll just say 'want to buy from bread?' the police will never figure it out.

Words mean something and they're just codified memes, so why wouldn't emojis become codified?