The evidentiary value of WhatsApp and SMS screenshots and ordinary emails in the Italian legal system
Tuesday 14 April 2026
Paolo Grandi
RPLT, Milan
Paolo.grandi@rplt.it
Daniele Merighetti
RPLT, Milan
Daniele.merighetti@rplt.it
Luciano Campisi
RPLT, Milan
Luciano.campisi@rplt.it
A screenshot of a WhatsApp conversation (or other message sent via messaging apps or SMS) is often the only documentary evidence of circumstances and facts referred to by the parties in civil proceedings.
Having become a fundamental communication tool in every context, including the workplace, thanks to its simplicity and reliability, WhatsApp is increasingly called upon to serve as evidence in court, without the Italian legislator having yet established specific regulations. It has therefore been necessary for the Italian national courts to intervene.
The evidentiary value of a WhatsApp message
According to the case law of the Italian Supreme Court, Article 2712 of the Civil Code provides the legal basis for the use of WhatsApp messages as evidence in civil proceedings.
According to this provision, 'photographic, computer or cinematographic reproductions, phonographic recordings and, in general, any other mechanical representation of facts and things constitute full proof of the facts and things represented, if the person against whom they are produced does not deny their conformity with the facts or things themselves'.
The Joint Divisions of the Italian Supreme Court1 have definitively classified WhatsApp (and SMS) screenshots as mechanical reproductions pursuant to Article 2712 of the Civil Code.
The logical result of this interpretation is a now accepted principle, according to which WhatsApp messages (or other messages conveyed by messaging applications) constitute full proof of the facts represented, at least in the absence of a specific denial by the party against whom the message is produced.2
What to do if a WhatsApp message is disavowed
In civil proceedings, following the disavowal of a computer reproduction pursuant to Article 2712 of the Italian Civil Code, the party that produced the document and intends to use it loses the evidentiary advantage of 'full proof' and assumes the burden of proving its conformity with the facts or things represented.
In order to be effective, the disavowal must be specific, as a generic challenge to the document is not sufficient; it is necessary to indicate the actual content of the original that is assumed to be different from the reproduction filed.
When the disavowal is specific and timely, the reproduction loses its legal probative value and is downgraded to a simple presumption or circumstantial evidence that can be freely assessed by the judge. At this point, the party that produced the WhatsApp message has the burden of proving its authenticity and the truthfulness of its content, using the following tools:
- Verification request, whereby the judge is asked to ascertain, through an incidental sub-proceeding, that the digital reproduction is genuine and attributable to the opposing party;
- Court-appointed technical consultancy (CTU), whereby the judge appoints an expert to conduct a forensic analysis of the digital document. The CTU may involve various investigations, such as metadata analysis; verification of file integrity; analysis of the original medium (computer, smartphone, email server) to reconstruct its origin and path; comparison of the technical characteristics of the disputed document with those of other documents of certain origin.
- Presumptive evidence, inferring the authenticity of the statement from a series of known and proven facts which, taken together, make the truth of the unknown fact (the authenticity of the acknowledgement of debt) highly probable. Examples of elements that may constitute presumptions are:
- The origin of the document from an email address or messaging account commonly used by the other party.
- The consistency of the content of the statement with other communications between the parties or with the nature of their relationship.
- The absence of a timely and credible challenge to the message in an out-of-court setting before the start of the lawsuit.
- The coincidence in time between the sending of the document and other relevant events.
Case law has clarified that the link between a known fact and an unknown fact does not necessarily have to be causal, as it is sufficient for there to be 'a consequentiality that is appreciable in terms of probability or reasonable possibility, according to a criterion of social normality'.3
4. Testimonial evidence, to prove circumstances that directly or indirectly confirm the authenticity of the document.
Obtaining a payment order based on a WhatsApp message
Another very important area concerns the possibility of obtaining an injunction based on statements made via WhatsApp. In particular, under what conditions can an exchange of WhatsApp communications constitute written evidence pursuant to Article 634 of the Italian Code of Civil Procedure for the issuance of an injunction without hearing the other party or, even, proof of acknowledgement of debt such as to allow the issuance of a provisionally enforceable injunction.
The injunction procedure requires two levels of analysis to be distinguished.
The first is the requirement for written evidence pursuant to Article 633, paragraph 1, no. 1, of the Italian Code of Civil Procedure, necessary for the issuance of the order for payment. Pursuant to Article 634 of the Italian Code of Civil Procedure, unilateral promises in private writing constitute written evidence. WhatsApp messages, as mechanical reproductions pursuant to Article 2712 of the Italian Civil Code, fully satisfy this requirement, and Law No. 40/2008 equates digital messages with paper documents for the purposes of the written evidence required for the issuance of an injunction.
The possibility of using WhatsApp messages as proof of credit in summary proceedings is therefore admissible as it is suitable for supplementing the written proof of its existence.4
The second is the granting of provisional enforcement of the injunction pursuant to Article 642, paragraph 2, of the Italian Code of Civil Procedure, which requires a private document from the debtor acknowledging the debt incurred.
In this case, according to Italian case law, however, an uncontested WhatsApp screenshot is not sufficient (especially considering that disavowal is not possible before opposition), but it is necessary that the content of the conversation allows for sufficient precision in identifying the causa debendi, the quantum and the traceability of the message to the debtor.
If this requirement is met, case law considers the request for provisional enforceability of the injunction to be admissible on the basis of a debt acknowledgement contained in WhatsApp conversations duly produced in court.5
The same principle was also confirmed in opposition proceedings, where the same screenshots withstood the scrutiny of the full trial.
On several occasions, Italian courts have considered WhatsApp messages to be fully admissible, attributing fundamental evidentiary value to them and qualifying the admissions contained therein as extrajudicial confessions with the effect of reversing the burden of proof on the opponent.6
Even before instant messaging became the main channel for informal negotiations, the issue of the probative value of ordinary emails had already been addressed.
The issue under debate concerned the possibility that an ordinary email message, without a signature and therefore not traceable with certainty to its author (as opposed to a communication sent by certified email), could be used as evidence in civil proceedings.
The answer was positive and was consolidated, once again, around a principle that is now undisputed: an unsigned email message already constitutes a computer reproduction pursuant to Article 2712 of the Italian Civil Code and forms full proof of the facts represented in the absence of a compliant disclaimer.7 The legal principles developed for ordinary emails have therefore been applied, by analogy, to WhatsApp messaging.
Notes
1. (Judgment no. 11197 of 27 April 2023)
2. (Cass. SS.UU. no. 11197/2023; Order No. 1254/2025)
3. (Civil Court, Section L, No. 9257 of 08-04-2025)
4. (Justice of the Peace of Latina, order no. 2399 of 25 June 2021)
5. (Among many others, Court of Ravenna, 10 March 2017, no. 231)
6. (Court of Trento, d.i. 26/11/2021, R.G. 2979/2021; Court of Cagliari, d.i. 17/09/2024, R.G. 4650/2024; Court of Campobasso, d.i. 10/05/2025, R.G. 647/2025; Court of Padua, judgment no. 1364 of 29/07/2024 ( ); Court of Patti, judgment no. 1202 of 27/11/2023; Court of Castrovillari, judgment no. 525 of 21/03/2025)
7. (Cass. No. 19622/2024; No. 11584/2024; No. 30186/2021; No. 11606/2018)