Digitalisation is gradually changing not only the way we work, communicate or invest, but also the nature of the property we leave behind. In addition to traditional objects of inheritance, such as real estate, funds in bank accounts or movable assets, the modern world is also opening the door to new objects of inheritance, particularly property located in the digital environment. This may include, for example, cryptocurrencies, accounts with online investment platforms, domains, content on social networks, cloud storage, e-mail accounts, digital photographs, gaming accounts or subscription services. This collection of property values, rights, data and access rights is often referred to as digital property or, alternatively, as a digital estate.
Digital inheritance, however, cannot be understood merely as a matter of sentimental value, photographs or messages on social networks. In many cases, it may have a very real financial value. Typical examples include cryptocurrency wallets, NFTs, domain names and access details to digital assets, monetised accounts, especially on social networks, profitable digital content creation or online businesses. At the same time, however, in the case of digital property, it is often not sufficient simply to determine to whom it should pass upon death. In practice, the legal definition of what should be subject to inheritance may itself be problematic, as may the question of how to identify such an asset sufficiently in a will, whether it constitutes a transferable property right or merely a non-transferable user account, and whether the heirs will have factual access to the asset in question.
Czech Legal Regulation of Digital Inheritance
Czech law does not yet contain any specific legal regulation of digital inheritance. Digital property is therefore assessed under the general rules of inheritance law, in particular under the Civil Code (the “Civil Code”). Pursuant to Section 1475(2) of the Civil Code, the estate consists of the entire property of the deceased person, with the exception of rights and obligations exclusively linked to their person, unless they have been recognised as a debt or asserted before a public authority. Therefore, if a digital asset has property value and is not a right of a personal nature, it may, in principle, be capable of becoming part of the estate.
In reality, however, it is necessary to distinguish between the digital property itself, the content stored within a particular service, and the user account as a contractual relationship between the deceased person and the platform provider. While, for example, cryptocurrency, a domain or a digital work may constitute property value, access to an e-mail account, cloud storage or a profile on a social network will often depend on the contractual terms of the specific provider. Many platforms also stipulate that an account is non-transferable, or that access by third parties to the account is not possible unless specific conditions are met.
A separate issue is the very identification of the existence of digital property. In estate proceedings, a notary usually identifies the property and debts of the deceased person; however, they do not have any practical means of actively checking all online services, cryptocurrency wallets, cloud storage or user accounts that the deceased person may have used. Therefore, if the heirs are unaware of the digital property, it may not be included in the estate proceedings at all. This is particularly important in the case of assets whose existence is not externally apparent and whose value depends on knowledge of a password, private key or other access detail.
A specific aspect is also the protection of privacy and personal data. Pursuant to recital 27 of the GDPR, the GDPR does not apply to the personal data of deceased persons, while Member States may provide for their own rules regarding the processing of such data. This does not mean, however, that the heirs’ access to digital accounts is automatic. E-mail accounts, messages or cloud storage may also contain personal data and communications of other persons, which service providers often take into account when assessing requests from surviving relatives.
European Framework and Lack of Harmonisation
At the European Union level, there is currently no single comprehensive legal framework expressly addressing digital inheritance. However, the general European framework for cross-border succession matters is relevant, in particular Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on succession. It primarily regulates matters of jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions in matters of succession and establishes the European Certificate of Succession. In the case of digital assets, it may therefore be significant especially where the deceased person had links to several states or where the service provider, account administrator or certain property value is located abroad.
The Regulation does not, however, address what exactly constitutes a digital asset, whether a specific account is transferable, or how heirs are to obtain access to data stored with online service providers. This issue therefore remains largely dependent on national law, the contractual terms of individual platforms and the technical possibilities of access. Similarly, the GDPR does not provide a unified solution for digital estates, as it does not apply to the personal data of deceased persons and merely leaves Member States the possibility to adopt their own rules in this area.
The absence of harmonisation therefore leads to fragmented legal solutions. While some states have adopted more explicit regulation of digital estates, others, including the Czech Republic, still rely primarily on the general rules of inheritance, contract and personality rights law. This is precisely why the need for model rules on digital assets, data and other digital remains of deceased persons is increasingly being discussed at the European level. For example, the European Law Institute is working on a project focused on model rules concerning the definition of digital remains, access to them, their inheritability and related issues of data protection.
Foreign Approaches
Foreign legal systems show that digital inheritance may be approached in various ways. Germany is an important example, where the Federal Court of Justice dealt with the issue of heirs’ access to a Facebook account. In a decision concerning the account of a deceased minor user, the court concluded that the contractual relationship between a user and the operator of a social network may pass to the heirs in a manner similar to other contractual relationships. The heirs were therefore to obtain access to the content of the account, with the court rejecting the argument that such access would automatically be prevented by the protection of personal data or the confidentiality of communications.
France has chosen a different model. French law expressly allows an individual to determine how their personal data should be handled after their death, in particular whether it should be retained, erased or disclosed to a certain person. This regulation therefore works with the concept of a person’s previously expressed wishes regarding the handling of their data after death. In the United States, a number of states have adopted legislation based on the Revised Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act, which provides estate administrators or other authorised persons with a framework for access to digital assets, with the user’s wishes expressed through an online tool, a will or another legal act playing an important role.
Foreign developments therefore show two basic tendencies. The first consists in the effort to subject digital assets to the general rules of inheritance law. The second, by contrast, emphasises the need for specific regulation that will better respond to the nature of digital accounts, the contractual terms of providers and the protection of the privacy of third parties.
Tools and Settings Offered by Digital Platforms
In addition to legal regulation, the rules of individual service providers also play an essential role. Apple allows users to designate a so-called “Legacy Contact”, who may request access to selected data after the user’s death, provided they have an access key and a death certificate. Google offers the Inactive Account Manager, through which a user may set in advance who will be notified in the event of long-term inactivity and to which data they will gain access. However, if no such setting exists, providers generally do not provide login details and assess requests from surviving relatives individually. For example, Google expressly states that it does not provide passwords or other login details.
In the Czech context, it is also appropriate to mention data boxes. In the event of the death of a natural person, the data box is made inaccessible, meaning that it is no longer possible to send new messages to it or from it. Passive access for viewing older messages is, however, possible for a period of three years, after which the data box is definitively cancelled.
In addition to the tools offered directly by large digital platforms, specialised services and applications focused on the administration of digital estates are also gradually developing. These may function, for example, as digital vaults, password managers, tools for passing instructions to a trusted person or so-called “dead man’s switch” systems, which, after a certain period of user inactivity, send a pre-prepared message, instructions or notification to selected persons. These tools may be of considerable importance especially where it is necessary to inform surviving relatives that certain digital assets exist and where to find further instructions. At the same time, however, they generally do not constitute a substitute for a will or another legally binding disposition mortis causa, and their use therefore requires caution, especially if they are to contain passwords, private keys or other sensitive data.
How to Deal with Digital Inheritance in Practice
The basic recommendation is not to leave digital property outside the scope of estate planning. It is advisable to create an overview of digital assets, in particular accounts, domains, cryptocurrency wallets, cloud storage, copyright works and subscription services. This list should be regularly updated and stored securely, separately from the will itself. It is generally not advisable to include passwords or private keys in the will, as this may result in a loss of confidentiality and, at the same time, such details may change quickly and regularly.
In the will itself or in an inheritance contract, by contrast, it is possible to expressly regulate to whom digital assets with property value should pass and who should be authorised to administer the digital estate. From a practical perspective, it may also be appropriate to set up contact persons for key services, use a password manager, keep instructions with a trusted person, or consult a notary or attorney. The aim should not merely be to pass on passwords, but to enable the heirs to identify the digital property, prove their authorisation and subsequently actually dispose of the property.
Conclusion
Digital inheritance is an area in which legal regulation struggles to keep up with technological reality. Czech law does allow digital assets with property value to be included in the estate, but it does not expressly address the issue of access to accounts, data and online services after the user’s death. The result is legal and practical uncertainty, in which heirs must navigate between the general regulation of inheritance law, the contractual terms of providers and technical barriers to access.
In the future, the importance of digital estates can be expected to continue to grow. It is therefore all the more important for individuals to consider their digital property in good time and to include it in their estate planning. Otherwise, even property of significant value may remain practically inaccessible to heirs, not because it would not be inheritable, but because it will not be possible to locate it, legally identify it with sufficient certainty or make it technically accessible.
Should you have any questions regarding digital inheritance or the administration of your estate, we at PEYTON legal are always at your disposal.
Mgr. Martin Heinzel, partner – heinzel@plegal.cz
Anna Němcová, právní asistentka – nemcova@plegal.cz
9. 7. 2026