Inheritance of Individual Digital Objects in Russian National Legislation and European Union Law: Theoretical and Practical Issues

INTRODUCTION. This article examines a pressing issue of human-rights protection arising in the inheritance of digital objects that have no economic value or have an indeterminate economic value and are closely linked with the decedent’s private life (hereinafter “digital objects of a personal nature”). Such objects include accounts on online platforms, electronic correspondence, personal photographs, and other forms of digital self-expression that constitute an integral part of a modern individual’s private life. Upon a person’s death, a complex set of questions arises in the field of succession law, personal data protection, and the safeguarding of non-pecuniary personal rights. The purpose of the study is to identify legal gaps and inconsistencies in this area, to conduct a comparative analysis of emerging approaches to addressing them within EU law and in the national law of foreign states, and to assess the prospects for developing relevant regulation in the Russian Federation, taking into account the specific features of the domestic legal system.

MATERIALS AND METHODS. The theoretical foundation of the study is based on scholarly works by domestic and foreign legal scholars, including experts in EU law, the national law of foreign states, and Russian law. The research methodology includes the methods of analysis and synthesis, induction and deduction, as well as the comparative legal method and the formal legal method. The empirical basis of the study comprises EU legal acts, the norms of the national law of foreign states and the Russian Federation, user agreements, and case law.

RESULTS. The analysis shows that there is currently no unified approach to regulating the inheritance of digital objects of a personal nature. EU law protects the digital data of living persons; however, with respect to the data of deceased persons, no supranational data-protection regime has been established, and regulation is possible at the national level. EU Member States demonstrate a variety of approaches, ranging from including proprietary rights and obligations arising from user agreements with online platforms in the estate to recognizing lifetime dispositions concerning the fate of digital data and granting heirs (or other authorized persons) powers to exercise certain rights with respect to the deceased person’s personal data under national legislation. Legal regulation in the United States of America provides a procedural hierarchy that places the decedent’s intent at the forefront. In Russia, there is no direct regulation and judicial practice in this area remains underdeveloped. The situation is further aggravated by the fact that mandatory rules of succession law defining the composition of the estate do not provide an unambiguous answer as to whether certain types of digital objects form part of the estate; as a result, online platforms often restrict heirs’ access, referring to the terms of their user agreements. At the same time, domesticlegisla tion provides certain legal protection mechanisms that can be applied to digital objects as well.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS. Digitalization requires the adaptation of traditional successionlaw constructs. To effectively regulate the inheritance of digital objects of a personal nature, Russia needs to develop existing legal mechanisms in a consistent manner. The priority directions for legislative improvement proposed are: first, to legally recognize the possibility for an individual to make a lifetime digital directive determining the fate of their accounts and personal data, which could be implemented through amendments to the Federal Law “On Personal Data” (July 27, 2006 No. 152-FZ); second, to expand the powers of the executor of the will, granting them a statutory right to interact with online platforms in order to carry out the decedent’s intent or protect their digital legacy; and third, to develop a mechanism that takes into account the legitimate interests of all stakeholders. Only a comprehensive approach that considers both the autonomy of the decedent’s will and the need for procedural safeguards for all participants in digital relations can overcome legal uncertainty and ensure effective human rights protection in the digital age.

1. Akhmadullina A.F. Grazhdansko-pravovoe znachenie akkauntov v sotsial'nykh setyakh [The civil law meaning of social media accounts]. – Lex russica. 2022. T. 75. No. 12. S. 130-144. URL: https://lexrussica.msal.ru/jour/article/view/2782/1313 (data obrashcheniya: 04.10.2025).

2. Aliev D.M. Kontseptsiya tselostnosti lichnosti i neiroprava: obzor diskussionnykh voprosov [The Concept of The Integrity of the Person and Neurorights: A Review of Controversial Issues.]. – Moskovskii zhurnal mezhdunarodnogo prava [Moscow Journal of International Law]. 2025. No. 3. S. 91-102. URL: https://www.mjil.ru/jour/article/view/2891 (data obrashcheniya: 17.01.2026).

3. Banta N.M. Inherit the Cloud: The Role of Private Contracts in Distributing or Deleting Digital Assets at Death. – Fordham Law Review. 2014. Vol. 83. No. 2. P. 799-854. URL: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol83/iss2/16/ (accessed date: 25.09.2025).

4. Bordyugovskaya A.A. Problemy nasledovaniya tsifrovogo imushchestva [Problems of inheritance of digital property]. – Zhurnal pravovykh i ekonomicheskikh issledovanii [Journal of Legal and Economic Research]. 2023. No. 3. S. 107-113. URL: https://giefjournal.ru/node/2095 (data obrashcheniya: 04.10.2025).

5. Buitelaar J.C. Post-mortem privacy and informational self-determination. – Ethics and Information Technology. 2017. Vol. 19. P. 129-142. URL: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10676-017-9421-9 (accessed date: 25.09.2025).

6. Conti Y. Electronic Communications of Deceased Users: How European Law Can Help Strike a Balance Between Post-Mortem Access and Privacy. – SSRN. 2024. URL: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4934731 (accessed date: 02.10.2025).

7. Conway H., Grattan S. The ‘New’ New Property: Dealing with Digital Assets on Death. – Modern Studies in Property Law. Eds. by H. Conway, R. Hickey Vol. 9. P. 99- 115. – Queen's University Belfast Law Research Paper. 2017. No. 2021-126. URL: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3289171 (accessed date: 02.10.2025).

8. Cummings R.G. The Case Against Access to Decedents’ E-mail: Password Protection as an Exercise of the Right to Destroy. – Minnesota Journal of Law, Science & Technology. 2014. Vol. 15. No. 2. P. 897-947. URL: https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/mjlst/vol15/iss2/5/ (accessed date: 07.10.2025).

9. De Miguel Beriain I., Duarte Sánchez A., Castillo Parrilla J. What Can We Do with the Data of Deceased People? A Normative Proposal. – European Review of Private Law. 2021. Vol. 29. No. 5. P. 785-806. URL: https://d-nb.info/1257421255/34 (accessed date: 28.09.2025).

10. Edwards L., Harbinja E. Protecting Post-mortem Privacy: Reconsidering the Privacy Interests of the Deceased in a Digital World. – Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal. 2013. Vol. 32. No. 1. P. 101-147. URL: https://uhra.herts.ac.uk/id/eprint/4831/1/Edwards.Galleyed_GOOD.pdf (accessed date: 02.10.2025).

11. Fras M. Succession of Digital Goods. A Comparative Legal Study. – Review of European and Comparative Law. 2021. Vol. 47. No. 4. P. 67-81. URL: https://czasopisma.kul.pl/index.php/recl/article/view/12859 (accessed date: 02.10.2025).

12. Fuchs A. What happens to your social media account when you die? The first German judgments on digital legacy. – ERA Forum. 2021. Vol. 22. P. 1-7. URL: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12027-021-00652-y (accessed date: 02.10.2025).

13. Grin' E.S. Nasledovanie akkauntov v sotsial'nykh setyakh: rossiiskii i zarubezhnyi opyt [Inheritance of social media accounts: Russian and foreign experience]. – Aktual'nye problemy rossiiskogo prava [Actual problems of Russian law]. 2022. Vol. T. 17. No. 2. S. 128-134. URL: https://aprp.msal.ru/jour/article/view/3120 (data obrashcheniya: 04.10.2025).

14. Haneman V.J. The law of digital resurrection. – Boston College Law Review. 2025. Vol. 66. No. 5. P. 1569-1626. URL: https://bclawreview.bc.edu/articles/3205/files/68389b44a7eae.pdf (accessed date: 17.01.2026).

15. Harbinja E. Post-mortem privacy 2.0: theory, law, and technology. – International Review of Law, Computers & Technology. 2017. Vol. 31. No. 1. P. 26-42. URL: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13600869.2017.1275116 (accessed date: 07.10.2025).

16. Harbinja E., McVey M., Edwards L. Post-mortem privacy and digital legacy – a qualitative enquiry. – SCRIPTed: A Journal of Law, Technology and Society. 2024. Vol. 21. No. 1. P. 4-39. URL: https://pureadmin.qub.ac.uk/ws/portalfiles/portal/623167448/2_Post_-_mortem_privacy_and_digital_legacy_-_a_qualitative_enquiry.pdf (accessed date: 25.09.2025).

17. Igbaeva G.R., Grevtseva V.A. Voprosy tsifrovogo nasledovaniya: osobennosti nasledovaniya akkaunta v sotsial'nykh setyakh [Issues of digital inheritance: features of account inheritance in social networks]. – Pravda i zakon [Truth and law]. 2023. No. 1 (23). S. 25-32. URL: https://skspba.ru/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/1.2023-1.pdf (data obrashcheniya: 04.10.2025).

18. Kharitonova Yu.S. Nasledovanie legalizovannykh tsifrovykh aktivov: kollizii i vozmozhnye napravleniya sovershenstvovaniya rossiiskogo zakonodatel'stva [Inheritance of legalized digital assets: conflicts and possible ways to improve Russian legislation]. – Pravo. Zhurnal VShE [Right. HSE Journal]. 2024. T. 17. No. 2. S. 74-95. URL: https://lawjournal.hse.ru/article/view/21735 (data obrashcheniya: 25.09.2025).

19. Malgieri G. R.I.P.: Rest in Privacy or Rest in (Quasi-) Property? Personal Data Protection of Deceased Data Subjects between Theoretical Scenarios and National Solutions. – Data Protection and Privacy: The Internet of Bodies. Brussels: Hart Publishing. Eds. by R. Leenes, R. van Brakel, S. Gutwirth, P. de Hert. 2018. URL: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3185249 (accessed date: 07.10.2025).

20. Maspes I. Digital Inheritance, Right of the Heirs to Access to the Deceased User’s Account, Non-Transferability Clauses: An Overview in the Light of Two Judgments Issued by Italian Courts. – The Italian Law Journal. 2022. Vol. 8. No. 1. P. 407-423. URL: https://theitalianlawjournal.it/data/uploads/8-italj-1-2022/407-mapes.pdf (accessed date: 07.10.2025).

21. Suvorov E.D. Primenenie printsipov dogovornogo prava k dogovornym otnosheniyam, oslozhnennym tsifrovym elementom [The application of the principles of contract law to contractual relations complicated by the digital element]. – Lex russica. 2022. T. 75. No. 1. S. 109-121. URL: https://lexrussica.msal.ru/jour/article/view/2259 (data obrashcheniya: 04.10.2025).

22. Terletska M. Post-mortem privacy and the latest GDPR legislative shifts. – L’Europe Unie / United Europe. 2023. Vol. 20. P. 44-53. URL: https://zenodo.org/records/15194540 (accessed date: 04.10.2025).

23. Torkunova E.A. Pravo na tselostnost' lichnosti v evropeiskoi sisteme zashchity prav cheloveka [The right to Integrity of the Person in the European human rights protection system]. – Mezhdunarodnoe publichnoe i chastnoe parvo [International Public and Private Law]. 2025. No. 4. S. 39-44. URL: https://lawinfo.ru/articles/12337/pravona-celostnost-licnosti-evropeiskoi-sisteme-zashhityprav-celoveka (data obrashcheniya: 17.01.2026).

24. Vasilevskaya L.Yu., Poduzova E.B., Tasalov F.A. Tsifrovizatsiya grazhdanskogo oborota: problemy i tendentsii razvitiya (tsivilisticheskoe issledovanie) [Digitalization of civil turnover: problems and development trends (a civilistic study)]. Monografiya. V 5 t. Otv. red. L.Yu. Vasilevskaya. T. 1. Moscow: Prospekt. 2021. 367 s.

25. Vigorito A. Postmortem Exercise of Data Protection Rights: the Apple Case. – Roma Tre Law Review. 2021. No. 2. P. 83-92. URL: https://romatrepress.uniroma3.it/wpcontent/uploads/2022/03/RTLR-2-2021.pdf (accessed date: 04.10.2025).