The subject of the research is the social relations arising from the regulation of digital accounts and other digital assets of users through user agreements of digital platforms, as well as their relationship with the norms of civil and inheritance law. The focus is on the legal nature of user agreements as adhesion contracts and their role in the regulation of the management of these objects in general, as well as in determining the fate of accounts after the user's death. The study analyzes how the conditions set by digital platforms actually shape the regime for managing digital assets and limit the possibility of their transfer to third parties, including heirs. Special attention is given to the conflicts arising between the private law regulation implemented by platforms and the fundamental principles of inheritance law. The methodological framework of the research comprises general scientific and private scientific methods of cognition, including analysis, synthesis, systematic-structural and comparative legal methods. Methods of formal-legal analysis and legal interpretation of norms of civil and inheritance law were employed, as well as the study of user agreements of digital platforms as sources of private regulation. As a result of the study, it was established that user agreements of digital platforms effectively serve as an independent mechanism for regulating the fate of users' digital assets. The conditions of such agreements often impose restrictions on the transfer of accounts to third parties, as well as special modes of their functioning after the user's death. Such provisions can conflict with the principles of inheritance law, primarily the principle of universal succession. It is concluded that the existing model of platform regulation does not ensure an adequate balance of interests for users, their heirs, and digital platforms. In this regard, the necessity for further development of legal mechanisms for the regulation of the inheritance of digital assets and clarification of the relationship between the conditions of user agreements and imperative norms of civil legislation is justified.
Ilya Mikhailovich Danilenko (Sun,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: