WhatsApp groups are no longer just a place for family news and holiday greetings. Today they are the office, the diwaniya, the parents' committee and the neighbourhood forum. Disputes now break out inside them: a hurtful remark in a moment of anger, an abusive message that one member forwards to another group, a photo passed around with a mocking caption. Then the injured person turns to the group admin and asks: why didn't you delete it? Why didn't you remove him? Are you part of this?
We receive questions like these almost every week, from both sides of the dispute. The injured party asks whether there is any offence at all when the group is "closed" and only its members can see it. The member who forwarded the message asks whether he can be liable for words he did not write. The member who reacted with a laughing face asks whether that makes him an accomplice. And the admin asks whether the law obliges him to delete and remove, and whether his silence can be held against him. These are precise questions, and general answers about "online defamation" do not settle them.
This article therefore focuses on groups specifically, and on the roles people play inside them: the author, the forwarder, the member who reacts, the silent member and the admin. We have covered the general elements of defamation and insult, and the difference between them, in Defamation, Insult and Slander under Kuwaiti Law. We discussed abuse on open platforms in Defamation and Insult on Social Media, and the general rules on intermediary liability in Liability of Platforms and Group Managers for User Content. Here we move from the general rule to the everyday realities of the group chat.
The Short Answer
- A closed group is not a private conversation: an abusive message that reaches members other than the victim has been seen by third parties, which is the core of what the law requires for offences against reputation. A group being "private" does not prevent the offence from arising, although its size and nature affect how serious the court considers it and how much compensation it awards.
- The author is primarily liable: criminal liability is personal, and the starting point is that whoever wrote and sent the words answers for them.
- Forwarding is not a neutral act: a member who forwards an abusive message to another group or to new people widens its circulation by his own act, and may be liable for it if the intent is there. "I didn't write it" is not a defence in itself.
- Emoji reactions depend on context: a bare reaction is not, as a rule, the same as writing the words. But an emoji can itself be an insult aimed at a person, and it can be taken as a sign of approval. How much weight it carries is for the court to decide.
- Silence alone is not an offence: an ordinary member who read the message and said nothing is not, in principle, liable. The admin's position is more delicate because he holds the tools to delete and remove, and in some circumstances doing nothing after being told can count against him.
- An admin is not liable merely for being the admin: the case against him grows stronger if he took part in the abuse, encouraged it, or adopted it by reposting, pinning or endorsing it, or if he added someone to the group in order to humiliate them.
- Evidence comes first: full screenshots, an exported chat and the original phone, followed where needed by testimony from members.
- The injured party has two routes that can run together: a criminal complaint and a civil claim for compensation. A waiver or settlement can have significant effect, depending on how the offence is classified and the stage the case has reached.
The Legal Framework
Abuse in WhatsApp groups is governed by several statutes that work together. Kuwait has no specific legislation on group chats or on the duties of group admins, so these questions are resolved by applying general rules to the facts, subject to the court's assessment. The key laws are:
- The Penal Code, Law No. 16 of 1960: the general law on offences against honour and reputation, namely defamation and insult. These offences consist of attributing a disgraceful fact to someone, or using words that offend their honour or standing, together with a degree of publicity, or third parties becoming aware of the abuse, as the provisions require. The Code also sets out the general rules on criminal participation (principal and accomplice), which are the reference point for assessing the role of an admin or a forwarder.
- The Law on Combating Information Technology Crimes, Law No. 63 of 2015: deals with acts committed through information networks or information technology means, including attacks on reputation and private life. Messaging apps fall within the concept of technological means without any real debate. Abuse in a group is therefore usually assessed under this law alongside the Penal Code. We explain the law in more depth in Kuwait's Cybercrime Law No. 63 of 2015 Explained.
- The Criminal Procedure Law, Law No. 17 of 1960: governs complaints, investigation, civil claims joined to criminal proceedings, and the effect of waivers and settlements on criminal cases.
- The Civil Code, Law No. 67 of 1980: sets out the rules of tort liability, which are the basis for claiming compensation for the moral and material harm caused by the abuse.
- Employment laws: including the Private Sector Labour Law No. 6 of 2010 and the civil service rules in the public sector. They matter because abuse in a work group can have disciplinary consequences that are separate from any criminal consequences.
- The Personal Status Law, Law No. 51 of 1984: becomes relevant when abuse occurs between spouses or in a family group, since such incidents may be raised in harm and marital discord proceedings.
There are also specific provisions on the misuse of communication devices, which may be relevant where abuse is sent in a one-to-one chat rather than in a group. Precisely how the facts are classified, and which provision applies, depends on what was said, how it was sent and who saw it.
The Substantive Rules: Who Is Liable for What Inside the Group
1. Is there publicity in a closed group?
This is the defence we hear most often from people facing a complaint: "The group is private, the members are relatives or colleagues, I didn't publish anything to the public." The answer is that offences against reputation do not only protect a person from being insulted in front of the whole world. They protect his standing in the eyes of others. If the abusive message reaches even one member other than the victim, a third party has seen it, and the basis for the offence will usually be met.
A group is also, by its nature, a tool for mass communication. A message does not stay where it was posted: it can be copied, screenshotted and forwarded in seconds. In practice it is therefore difficult to argue that a closed group is a private sitting in which there is no publicity, especially where the group is large or its members are not closely connected.
The nature of the group still matters, however. A remark in a three-person group is not as grave as the same remark in a group of two hundred neighbours, extended family or ministry colleagues. The difference usually shows up in the sentence and in the amount of compensation rather than in whether an offence exists at all. A one-to-one message sent only to the victim is a different matter, because no one else has seen it. Depending on its content, it may be classified differently.
2. The author of the message
Criminal liability is personal: a person answers only for his own conduct. The author of the abusive message is the principal offender. It is no excuse that he says it was "a joke", that he wrote it "in a moment of anger", or that he deleted it a few minutes later. What counts is the meaning of the words as an ordinary person would understand them in context. Deleting the message afterwards does not undo the fact that members received it, although it may be taken into account in assessing how serious the offence was.
"Delete for everyone" deserves a specific mention, because many people assume it solves the problem. In reality the message may already have been read or screenshotted, the notice "This message was deleted" remains in the chat, and anyone who saw the message can testify to its contents. An insult delivered by voice note, image or sticker is treated the same way as a written one where its meaning is clear.
3. The member who forwarded the message
Forwarding is the point people take most lightly. Someone receives a message accusing another person of dishonesty or disgraceful conduct and forwards it to the family group or the diwaniya group "for information" or "as a warning", believing he is merely passing it on. In fact, forwarding is a separate, deliberate act that widens the circle of people who see the abuse and puts it before a new audience that would not otherwise have seen it.
A forwarder may therefore be liable for his own act, not for the author's. The key test is intent: did he mean to spread the abuse and expose the victim, or did he have a legitimate purpose unrelated to publication? A person who sends the message to his lawyer, submits it to the investigating authority, or shows it to the victim to alert him is in a completely different position from someone who circulates it round the groups with a comment like "Look at what so-and-so did."
The position is even clearer where the forwarder adds a comment of his own endorsing or adding to the accusation. That comment is then a separate statement that may itself constitute an offence, regardless of the original message. The practical advice is simple: if you receive a message that insults someone, do not forward it. And if you are the injured party, anyone who widened the circulation may be answerable, depending on their role and intent.
4. Members who reacted with an emoji or commented
Kuwaiti legislation has no specific provision on emojis, and we are not aware of a published, settled judicial principle deciding in general terms how reactions are to be treated. They are therefore approached like any other means of expression: read in context, with the sender answerable for the meaning they carry. In practice, three situations can be distinguished:
- A reaction with no independent meaning: such as a thumbs-up or laughing face under an abusive message written by someone else. As a rule this is not the same as writing the words, although it may be taken as evidence of the reactor's attitude, particularly in disciplinary and civil disputes.
- An emoji that is itself insulting and aimed at a specific person: such as an animal symbol or an obscene gesture sent in reply to the victim's message or as a comment on their photo. Here the emoji may itself be treated as an insult, and the sender answers for it as if he had written the word.
- A supportive text comment: such as "Well said" or "That's the least he deserves". This is an independent expression of will, and depending on its wording and context it may amount to adopting and repeating the abuse.
5. Silence
An ordinary member who read the abusive message and did not respond is not, in principle, criminally liable. The law does not impose a general duty on group members to object or to defend the victim. Reading is not participating, and the two blue ticks mean nothing more than that the message was seen. In fact, that member may be exactly the witness the injured party needs to prove that the abuse happened and that others saw it.
The position is different where the silent person has a special role in the group, such as the admin, an employer in a staff group, or an official of an organisation that runs the group in its name. These people have the means to step in, and doing nothing after being told may count against them, as explained below.
6. The group admin's liability
The starting principle is that being an admin does not, in itself, make someone liable for everything members write. An admin is not an editor-in-chief. He does not review messages before they are posted, and usually learns of their content only after they have been sent. But the case against him grows stronger the closer his role comes to that of a participant in the abuse. This can be analysed through the admin's usual actions:
- Adding members: adding people is an ordinary admin function. The position changes if he adds a particular person so that they can be humiliated in front of others, or creates a group whose evident purpose is to shame and incite against someone. The admin is then seen as organising the abuse, not merely managing a chat.
- Not deleting: we are not aware of any express provision requiring a WhatsApp group admin to delete an abusive message within a set time. However, leaving a message up after the victim has clearly drawn his attention to it, when he was able to delete it, may be taken as evidence that he accepted its continued circulation. This is especially so if he also posted a supportive comment, pinned the message, or refused a deletion request in writing. The reverse also holds: an admin who deleted, warned and kept a record of what he did is in a much safer position.
- Removing members: removing an abusive member is, in principle, a legitimate administrative step and one of the tools of an admin acting in good faith. But removing the victim after the abuse while keeping the abuser, or removing someone with an insulting message, may be read as siding with the abuse, and the accompanying words may themselves be a separate insult. Removal is not an offence in itself, and a removed member has no general legal right to stay in a private group.
- Participation and adoption: if the admin wrote the abuse, reposted it, pinned it or encouraged it, he answers for his own act under the rules on principals and accomplices according to his role, regardless of his status as admin.
An admin who wants to protect himself and the group can put written rules in the group description, delete abusive messages as soon as he becomes aware of them, warn or remove the abuser, and keep a screenshot of what he deleted before deleting it. That screenshot should not be shared or circulated. It is simply kept as evidence that the admin acted responsibly.
7. Work, family and diwaniya groups
Work groups: insulting a colleague or manager in a work group has two separate consequences: a criminal one, if the elements of the offence are met, and a disciplinary one under the Labour Law No. 6 of 2010 and the employer's internal rules, or under civil service rules in government bodies. Neither depends on the other. Where a manager insults an employee in front of colleagues, the employee may have grounds for a criminal complaint, and the matter may also be raised in an employment dispute. Employers would be wise to adopt a written policy for work groups setting out their purpose, the conduct expected and who manages them.
Family groups: here the abuse is bound up with family ties, and the injured person often hesitates to complain. Kinship does not prevent the offence from arising, but it often makes settlement and waiver more realistic and more worthwhile. Where abuse between spouses takes place in front of relatives in the group, it may be relied on as evidence of harm in personal status proceedings, and its effect on children who are group members will also be considered.
Diwaniya and neighbourhood groups: these are often large and varied, and many of their members are also in other groups. Anything posted in them therefore spreads further, the damage to reputation is greater, and civil compensation tends to be higher. Public debate in these groups also raises the distinction between legitimate criticism of ideas and public performance on the one hand, and attacks on individuals and their honour on the other.
Principles of the Court of Cassation and a Note on Method
A number of general principles that Kuwaiti courts apply in reputation offences and liability are relevant here, including:
- The Court of Cassation has consistently held that criminal liability is personal: a person is answerable only for conduct proven to be his own, or for a contribution to it that the law punishes. This principle is the basis for refusing to hold an admin liable merely because he is the admin.
- It is settled that words are characterised by the meaning they carry in context, as the public would understand them, and not by their literal wording in isolation. That is why it is not enough to say a message was "a joke" or "just an emoji" if the context shows it was meant as an insult.
- The courts have also consistently held that determining the defendant's intent, and whether the elements of the offence are met, are questions of fact for the trial court, provided its reasoning is sound. The legal characterisation remains subject to review by the Court of Cassation.
- In civil liability, compensation rests on fault, damage and causation, and extends to moral harm to a person's honour, reputation and feelings. The amount is for the trial court to assess in light of the circumstances of each case.
A note on method: we have stated these principles in their general, settled form and have deliberately not cited particular judgment numbers, article numbers or penalty ranges. Accuracy on such details requires checking the official text in force at the time of the events and the judgments themselves, and a wrong number or figure could mislead a reader in a criminal matter. We have also found no express Kuwaiti provision governing the duties of group admins or the treatment of emojis. What we say about them is our analysis of how the general rules apply, not a definitive ruling. Any specific case requires a review of the messages, their context and timing, and the role of each person involved.
Practical Steps and Documents
1. Preserve the evidence first
A case whose evidence is not properly preserved can be lost however clear the abuse was. We discuss the evidential value of chats in Using WhatsApp and Electronic Messages as Evidence in Kuwait. For groups specifically:
- Take full screenshots showing the group name, the sender's number or name, the date and time, and the messages before and after. A screenshot cropped out of context is easy to challenge.
- Screenshot the member list and the group info page. They show that third parties saw the message and how large the audience was, and they identify the admins.
- Use the export chat feature if possible, and keep the file unaltered.
- Do not delete the group or the chat and do not change your phone. The investigating authority may ask to examine the original device.
- Where the message was forwarded, preserve the "Forwarded" label, and identify which groups it reached and who sent it to each.
- If you asked the admin to delete it, make the request in writing and keep your request, his reply or silence, and the times.
2. Testimony from members
Group members are potential witnesses that the abuse happened and that they saw it. Their testimony becomes more important if the author deleted the message, denies sending it, or claims the screenshot is fabricated. It helps to identify two or three reliable members who are willing to give statements.
3. The criminal complaint
The complaint is filed with the competent authority. The authorities responsible for cybercrime carry out technical enquiries where needed, including identifying the owner of a number who denies it or is unknown. Private individuals cannot uncover who owns a number themselves. A complaint should be made promptly: delay weakens the evidence, invites defences, and may have procedural consequences depending on the nature of the offence.
4. Waiver and settlement
Many group-chat disputes, especially in families, workplaces and diwaniyas, end in settlement. A waiver or settlement can bring the criminal case to an end where the law makes the prosecution, or its continuation, depend on the victim's wishes. The effect varies with the classification of the offence and the stage of the case. A settlement should be in writing and should spell out what it covers. Does it include the civil claim? Does it cover the forwarders, or only the author? Does it include an apology in the same group? In practice, an apology in the very place where the abuse happened does more to restore a person's standing than anything else.
5. Civil compensation
The injured party can claim compensation for moral and material harm. He can do so either by joining a civil claim to the criminal proceedings or by bringing a separate action before the civil court under the Civil Code, Law No. 67 of 1980. In assessing the amount, the court usually considers how serious the words were, the size of the group, the victim's standing among its members, whether the message was forwarded and spread, and whether the abuser apologised or persisted.
Documents usually required
- The injured party's Civil ID.
- Full screenshots and the exported chat file.
- Screenshots of the member list, group info and admins.
- Names and contact numbers of member witnesses.
- Evidence of any deletion request to the admin and his response.
- Evidence of harm when claiming compensation, such as psychological medical reports, effects on employment or business losses.
Three Hypothetical Cases
Case one: a diwaniya group and forwarding
Hypothetical facts: In a diwaniya group of about 150 members, Salem posts a message accusing Nasser of misappropriating the funds of a community association. Fahad forwards it to two other groups with the comment "Watch out for him." Three members react with laughing faces and the rest say nothing. The admin read the message without comment, then deleted it two days later when Nasser asked him in writing.
Legal analysis: Salem's message attributes a specific fact damaging to Nasser's reputation before a large audience. Salem is primarily liable unless he establishes a defence the law recognises. Fahad widened the circulation by his own act and added an endorsing comment, so he may be answerable for his conduct. The members who reacted with laughing faces did not write the abuse, and their reactions are generally weak evidence. The admin's position is relatively safe because he deleted the message on request, although the delay may be raised. The silent members are potential witnesses, not suspects.
Case two: a work group and the manager
Hypothetical facts: In a sales team group at a private company, the manager posts remarks demeaning a particular employee and mocking her competence and background, then pins the message. A colleague objects, and the manager removes him from the group.
Legal analysis: The manager is both the author and the admin, and pinning the message confirms that he adopted it. He may be liable for an offence against reputation if its elements are met. The employee may also raise the matter as mistreatment in the employment relationship under Labour Law No. 6 of 2010. Removing the objecting colleague is not an offence in itself, but it is evidence of the manager's attitude, and that colleague may become an important witness. The employee should avoid responding in kind and should preserve the evidence before anyone leaves the group or the message is deleted.
Case three: a family group and settlement
Hypothetical facts: In a family group, during a dispute over an inheritance, Munira sends a voice note describing her brother's wife in insulting terms. She deletes it "for everyone" an hour later, but several family members have already listened to it.
Legal analysis: A voice note is treated like a written message. Deleting it after others have heard it does not erase what happened, although it weakens the physical evidence unless a copy was kept. The testimony of those who listened becomes very important. Even so, the family relationship and the nature of the dispute make a written settlement, including an apology in the same group, an option worth considering before or during a complaint, bearing in mind how a waiver will operate at that stage of the case.
Comparison Table: Roles in the Group and Their Legal Position
- Author: Act: writing and sending the abuse. Position: primarily liable. Effect of later deletion: does not undo the act; may reduce its assessed gravity.
- Forwarder: Act: spreading the message to a new audience. Position: may be liable for his own act, depending on intent. Effect of a legitimate purpose (e.g. sending it to a lawyer or investigator): generally negates any intent to publish.
- Endorsing commenter: Act: a text comment that adopts or adds to the abuse. Position: may be liable for the comment as a separate insult.
- Emoji reactor: Act: a symbol under someone else's message. Position: not equivalent to authorship as a rule, unless the emoji is itself insulting and aimed at a specific person.
- Silent member: Act: reading without responding. Position: no liability in principle; a potential witness.
- Unaware admin: Act: managing the group without knowledge of the abuse. Position: not liable merely for being the admin.
- Admin after notice: Act: leaving the message up when able to delete it. Position: inaction may be taken as evidence of acceptance, assessed by the court on the facts.
- Participating admin: Act: writing, pinning, inciting, or adding someone in order to humiliate them. Position: liable as principal or accomplice according to his role.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. Is a small family group "public"?
If anyone other than the victim saw the abuse, third-party awareness is established. The small size of the group usually affects the assessment of gravity and compensation, not whether an offence exists.
2. I forwarded a message I didn't write. Can I be liable?
You may be liable for your own act of spreading it if you intended to circulate the abuse. It is different if you forwarded it for a legitimate purpose, such as sending it to your lawyer or to the investigating authority.
3. I put a laughing emoji under an abusive message. Am I now an accomplice?
A bare reaction is not, as a rule, the same as writing the words. It may be taken as evidence of your attitude, and the answer may differ if the emoji itself was insulting and aimed at someone.
4. Does the law require the admin to delete abusive messages?
We are not aware of an express provision requiring a WhatsApp group admin to delete within a set time. But leaving a message up after clear notice, when he could have deleted it, may count against him.
5. The admin removed me from the group. Can I complain?
Removal in itself is an administrative step, not an offence, and there is no general legal right to remain in a private group. If the removal came with insulting words, those words may be actionable.
6. The abuser used "delete for everyone". Is the matter over?
No. Deletion does not undo the fact that members received the message, which can be proved by earlier screenshots or by the testimony of those who read or heard it.
7. Is a screenshot enough evidence?
It is important evidence, but it is stronger when it shows the full context and is supported by the original device, the exported chat or members' testimony. The other side may challenge it, and it may be referred for technical examination.
8. Can I post a screenshot of the abuse in another group to defend myself?
This is not advisable. It spreads the abuse against you further and may expose you to liability if it includes other people's details or private conversations. Give it only to the complaints authority or your lawyer.
9. I responded to the abuse with abuse. Have I lost my rights?
Not automatically, but your response may make you the subject of a complaint too and weaken your position in any settlement or compensation claim. It is safer not to respond in kind.
10. Can we settle after a complaint has been filed?
In many cases, yes. The effect of a waiver on the criminal case depends on the classification of the offence and the stage of the case. The settlement should be in writing and define its scope, including the civil claim.
11. Can an employee face discipline for abuse in a work group even without a criminal complaint?
Yes. Disciplinary proceedings under the Labour Law and the employer's rules, or civil service rules, are separate from criminal proceedings and do not depend on them.
12. The number that abused me is unknown to me. What should I do?
Keep the number, the messages and the member list, and file a complaint. Identifying the owner of a number is done through the investigating authorities and technical enquiries, not by individuals.
Conclusion
A group chat is not the closed room many people imagine. It is a space where others see what is written, and where copying, forwarding and spreading are effortless. Abuse inside a group can therefore give rise to criminal and civil liability just as it can on open platforms, with its gravity varying according to the group's size and nature.
Not every member plays the same role. The author is primarily liable. A forwarder may answer for widening the circulation. An endorsing commenter may commit a separate insult. A silent member is, in principle, a witness rather than a suspect. An admin is not liable merely for being the admin. What determines his position is how he dealt with the abuse once he knew of it: whether he deleted it, left it up, pinned it, or removed someone.
Whatever your position, the first step is the same: preserve the evidence properly, do not forward, and do not respond in kind. Then weigh the right course, whether complaint, settlement or compensation, in light of your own facts rather than the general rules alone.
Legal Notice
This article provides general legal information for awareness purposes only. It is not legal advice or an opinion on any particular matter, and it does not create a lawyer-client relationship. How abuse is classified and what follows from it depend on the content, context and evidence of the messages, and on the laws in force at the time.
If you have been abused in a work, family or diwaniya group, or you are an admin or member facing a complaint or summons over a message you wrote or forwarded, the team at Yumnaak Law Firm can help you preserve the evidence properly, assess the facts, and choose the right course, whether complaint, settlement, a compensation claim or a defence. Contact us to book a consultation.
