The digital age has transformed nearly every aspect of our lives, including how we manage our personal information, communicate with others, and store memories. Yet an increasingly pressing question remains: what happens to all this digital content after death? The Italian legal system has recently confronted this issue head-on, and a new ruling from the Court of Venice on June 4, 2025, provides important guidance on the rights of heirs, the validity of contractual clauses from tech companies, and the broader theme of “digital inheritance” and digital data rights.
The Case Before the Court
The case originated in the heir of a deceased individual filing an urgent petition under Article 700 of the Italian Code of Civil Procedure. The heir asked the court to order a major technology company to preserve the deceased’s digital data and assist with recovering it. Specifically, the request aimed at obtaining access credentials to the deceased’s cloud and device ID in order to retrieve photos, documents, and correspondence stored both on devices and in the cloud.
The petitioner, a lifelong friend of the deceased, based his claim on Article 2-terdecies of the Italian Data Protection Code, which regulates the exercise of data protection rights after death. He argued that he had both a personal interest and a moral duty to safeguard the memory of the deceased. Furthermore, he raised a pressing risk: unless preserved, the account would soon be deleted by the company, leading not only to the permanent loss of personal memories but also to a serious impairment of the heir’s ability to defend himself against substantial creditor claims that had unexpectedly surfaced.
The First Ruling: Rejection
Initially, the Court of Venice rejected the request. It emphasized that the deceased had accepted the company’s general terms and conditions, which explicitly excluded the possibility of transferring the account or its contents mortis causa. In other words, upon death, the account was to be closed, and its contents deleted.
The court noted that the technology companies and similar companies provide a “legacy contact” function, allowing users to nominate a person authorized to access digital data after their death. Since the deceased had not activated this feature, the court ruled that the contractual provisions prevailed.
The Appeal: A Reversal
The heir filed an appeal, arguing that the initial decision had misunderstood the nature of his request. He reiterated the key points: his claim was grounded in the statutory right of post-mortem data access, and the urgency of preserving the data was undeniable, given both the personal and financial consequences at stake.
On appeal, the Court of Venice overturned its earlier ruling. The court ordered the digital services company to preserve all the deceased’s data, to liaise with the heir, and to take all necessary steps to recover information stored on devices and the cloud. This included, if necessary, delivering the access credentials to the heir.
The Legal Reasoning
The court’s reasoning centered on two main requirements: fumus boni iuris (the appearance of good legal grounds) and periculum in mora (the risk of irreparable harm).
- Fumus boni iuris.
The court invoked Article 2-terdecies of the Data Protection Code, which explicitly recognizes that the data protection rights established by the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) — such as rights of access, rectification, deletion, and portability — extend beyond death. These rights may be exercised by individuals with a legitimate interest, acting as a representative, or for valid family reasons. The court stressed that the law creates a presumption of continuity of these rights after death, unless the deceased had expressly prohibited such access. In this case, the service provider had failed to show that the deceased had left any such prohibition. - Periculum in mora.
The court found the risk of imminent harm clear. The heir was facing creditor claims in the millions of euros, of which he had been unaware. Access to the digital files could provide essential evidence for defending against these claims. The potential deletion of the account would thus severely compromise his ability to protect both his and the deceased’s interests.
The court also recognized the heir’s moral interest in preserving the deceased’s memory. As a close friend, he wished to safeguard photos, writings, and correspondence, which he planned to preserve through a foundation honoring the deceased. These factors strengthened the case for urgent protection.
Implications of the Decision
This ruling is groundbreaking for several reasons:
- Precedence of statutory rights over contractual clauses. The decision underlines that general contractual terms drafted unilaterally by tech companies cannot override statutory rights concerning post-mortem data access. In particular, the court rejected the idea that the mere acceptance of standard terms of service constitutes a valid bar to exercising legal rights after death.
- Recognition of moral and familial interests. The court acknowledged that digital data is not just an economic asset but also a repository of personal identity and memory. Protecting access to these records serves not only financial but also deeply human values.
- Encouragement of digital legacy planning. The decision highlights the importance for individuals to consciously manage their digital legacy. Tools such as “legacy contacts” or digital wills can help clarify intentions. But in the absence of express prohibition, heirs and close associates retain significant rights to access and preserve data.
- Consistency with broader jurisprudence. The ruling aligns with similar decisions by other Italian courts, including those of Milan (2021), Bologna (2021), and Rome (2022). Collectively, these cases confirm a trend toward prioritizing the persistence of data rights after death.
Broader Context: Digital Inheritance
The issue of digital inheritance is gaining momentum worldwide. Our personal devices and online accounts hold vast amounts of intimate data — photos, messages, writings, financial information — that form part of our identity. The Italian Data Protection Authority has recognized the importance of this issue by dedicating an entire section of its website to “digital inheritance”. Likewise, the National Council of Notaries has recently published a ten-point guide on digital legacy, encouraging individuals to engage in careful planning through digital wills or post-mortem mandates.
The legal challenge lies in striking a balance: respecting the deceased’s right to dignity and self-determination while also enabling heirs to access vital information for both sentimental and practical purposes. This tension mirrors traditional inheritance law, but with new layers of complexity brought by technology and data privacy concerns.
The Road Ahead
The Venice decision is a step forward in affirming that digital data does not simply vanish upon death, nor can its destiny be left entirely in the hands of private corporations. Instead, it is subject to legal rights that recognize the continuing interests of heirs, families, and close associates.
At the same time, the ruling underscores the need for individuals to think proactively about their digital legacy. Just as people draft wills for their physical assets, so too should they consider how to manage the “digital estate” — their online accounts, stored documents, and electronic communications. Clear instructions, whether through testamentary provisions or designated legacy contacts, can prevent disputes and ensure that one’s wishes are respected.
Conclusion
The June 2025 ruling by the Court of Venice marks a pivotal moment in the evolution of digital inheritance law in Italy. By affirming that heirs have the right to access the digital data of a deceased person — despite restrictive contractual clauses — the court has reinforced the principle that human dignity and memory outweigh rigid corporate policies.
As society continues to digitize, the questions raised in this case will only grow more pressing. How should we balance privacy with inheritance? How can we preserve a loved one’s digital memory while respecting their autonomy? And how can the law adapt to a world where our identities are increasingly bound to data?
The Venice court’s decision sets a clear direction: the rights of individuals, and their heirs, must remain at the center of digital inheritance.