ABSTRACT
This research paper explores the legal issue around the inheritance of digital assets in India, with a focus on Youtube channels .While Indian law recognizes the inheritance of physical and intellectual property, there is no clear recognition for digital assets in statutes that makes the management of the accounts after the user’s death subject to platform policies. The research analyses the Indian succession laws and the Information Technology Act and its limitations regarding digital assets and examines whether platform policies are restrictive in accessing the accounts by their heirs. The paper argues for a legal reform to classify digital assets as inheritable property and proposes changes in law to ensure the creator’s creation to be protected.
KEYWORDS
- Digital asset inheritance
- YouTube channel succession
- Indian succession law
- Monetized digital property
- Online platform account ownership
- Intellectual property in digital media
- Non-transferability
- Digital wills in India
- Virtual property rights
CHAPTER 1- INTRODUCTION
The concept of ‘property’ has traditionally been understood in the form of physical assets like land, jewels, houses etc. The inheritance laws in India primarily address and regulate the transfer of these types of tangible and financial assets on how to pass after a person’s death.
And similarly, over time, the legal understanding of property extended to include intellectual property creations of the mind, like books, music or other form of artwork. These are also now treated as valuable assets and they can be sold, transferred, licensed or inherited, just like other physical assets which are recognised under Indian law such as Copyright Act, Patents Act , and Trademark Act.
Now, in the digital era a new type of asset can be witnessed, that is, digital assets. These are the valuable things that exist completely online that are mostly combined with intellectual property, personal branding and commercial value. A key example of such assets is a monetized Youtube channel.
A monetized Youtube channel does not only consist of a collection of videos , but also a revenue generating digital business built by creators ideas, contents, skills and efforts. These channels make money through ads, sponsorships, and paid subscriptions that can even bring up regular income for years if no new content is uploaded.
When viewed closely, a monetized Youtube channel, contains all features of a business asset, it includes
- Intellectual property (the videos )
- Good will (the audience and subscriber base)
- Commercial Contracts (e.g. Contracts between advertising agencies)
Then,also if a content creator dies, there is no explicit law in India that allows digital assets to be inherited. Youtube channels are governed by the platform’s Terms of Service and not by inheritance law like for houses or bank accounts.Which makes the heirs or other family members unable to access or manage these accounts even if those channels continue to generate revenue.
While families can inherit the other assets said earlier like house, land or the intellectual property rights, one might not be able to claim the Youtube channel similar to other assets mentioned , limiting them from access to the income or managing the content as no law exists related to it .
This research aims to explore:
- Whether digital assets, specifically monetized Youtube channels can be classified as inheritable property under current Indian Law?
- How Indian statutes and acts address or ignore the transfer of these assets?
- The role and limitations of platform policies in relation with transfer the deceased accounts
- To recommend suggestions regarding this issue .
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This research carried by a doctrinal and analytical methodology, by studying laws, legal principles .It involves analysing statutory provisions from Indian Succession Act, the Hindu Succession Act and the Information Technology Act and how digital assets are treated under existing laws and platform policies of the digital platform.
RESEARCH METHOD
This research is conducted through qualitative legal analysis, using following methods
- Statutory analysis of Indian Inheritance laws and the Information Technology Act
- Comparative examination of platform policies
- Literature Review of academic articles, journal publications
- Doctrinal approach to interpret laws and to propose reforms
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
1. Arka Prasad Roy, Navigating the Legal Void: Digital Estate Planning in India’s Developing Legal System, Int’l J. of Advanced Research (Apr. 2023), https://www.journalijar.com/article/44077/ (last visited July 18, 2025).
This article mentions about the urgent need of digital estate planning in India. The author defines that those will include online accounts, emails, and social media and examines the consequences of not having a plan to transfer assets after death with a conclusion that individuals must actively manage their digital assets and consult certain professional to establish estate plans that covers all digital properties.
2 Elizabeth Sy, Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets: A Model Under RUFADAA, 32 Touro L. Rev. 647 (2016).
The analysis of the author regarding the Revised Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (RUFADAA) in the United States gives an idea on legislative approach towards digital inheritance. The author explores how RUFADAA gives the approach to access and managed deceased user’s accounts by executors under state law. The focus is kept on United States laws but this helps to provide a comparative model on how authority over digital estates can be structured.
CHAPTER 2 – UNDERSTANDING DIGITAL ASSETS AS PROPERTY IN THE INHERITANCE CONTEXT
As technology evolves, digital assets have become an important part of our life. A digital Asset is anything that is created and stored digitally, which is discoverable, identifiable and that has a value these assets include images, data, videos, and written content.
And these digital assets are now integrated in both our personal and professional life, it is almost inevitable to not possess them and that makes these not just a common thing but also more valuable.
Today, some digital assets are traded, monetized or even taxed. The most recognised ones are the Crypto currencies which are bought and sold on global exchanges and Non-fungible tokens show unique digital ownership and treated as investment property. . In India, Section 2 (47) A The Income Tax Act of India has introduced the concept of ‘virtual digital assets’ for the purpose of tax. Similarly, in the United States, digital properties are recognized for taxation purposes, which shows the shift in how an economic value is determined and what a digital property holds, even though it doesn’t have a physical form.
However, the recognition of digital assets is still incomplete in the legal area, particularly to platform based accounts like email or Youtube channels.
The said accounts or not just merely for entertainment, are also a mixture consisting of personal expression, commercial activity and intellectual property, but they are not properly treated as ‘property’ under existing succession laws.
While some digital assets like crypto currencies or non – fungible tokens are accepted as transferable property, the personal digital accounts are not given a inheritable status even if it has commercial value, data ownership, or revenue. Most of these assets are just considered as licensed access or contractual relationships with service providers. This means the account may die with the user, even if it had a financial worth or sentimental value.
From a legal view, it raises the question why not such assets get the same succession rights as other intangible properties like patents or trademarks while it has similar characteristics of a property.
2.1 Characteristics of Digital Assets
To argue for the recognition under inheritance law, the examination of its character is essential:
a. Intangible yet have economic value: Though the digital assets do not have a physical form but they can also generate revenue.
b. Dependent on Platforms: These assets are hosted on third party platforms, where the user does not have any ownership rights rather access is governed only by terms of service.
c. Access based, Not Title-Based: Unlike the physical property’s ownership or an intellectual property rights, for a digital asset it requires access credentials like usernames, passwords or any other means of recovery protocol rather than be proven through deeds or document
d. Dual Value: It not only contains economic value but also sentimental value similar to other properties.
2.2 YouTube Channels as a Case Study in Digital Property
Among all other digital assets, monetized Youtube channels are a crucial asset to this argument, as it has both commercial and legal characteristics of traditional properties.
It is a combination of intellectual creativity, platform policy and commercial contracts that makes it a powerful example of why digital assets deserve legal recognition.
a. Intellectual Property Ownership
Most of the Youtube channels are built with the content which are original, with their own creativity and ideas. These include the videos, scripts, thumbnails, edits etc. by the channel owner and these are protected under copyright law. While there are limitations as they license some usage rights to Youtube via its Terms of Service ownership of the work exists with the creator.
b. Revenue and Commercial Rights
The Youtube Channel creators earn through Google AdSense, sponsorships of brands, paid subscriptions which are based on contractual relationships between the creator and the platform. This commercial nature of contracts gives the channel both a legal and financial identity similar to a small business or franchise.
c. Goodwill and Subscriber Base
The channels which exist for a longer period develop a dedicated subscriber base, public credibility and develop intangible goodwill which impacts the assets long term value. Despite its intangible nature, goodwill is recognised as property under traditional business, and this rationale should be applied to digital platforms.
CHAPTER 3: INHERITABILITY UNDER INDIAN LAW
The Indian Law has a proper and a well-defined legal framework when it comes to inheritance of both movable and immovable property in statutes, but these laws when there were no digital developments like present , due to which it lacks a clarity on whether digital assets like monetized Youtube channels can be inherited by the legal heirs of the creator.
This chapter will look into two main legal domains: 1.Indian succession statutes 2. The Information Technology Act and focus on the extent to which the digital assets are inheritable under Indian law.
3.1 Succession Statutes and the Legal Gap in Digital Inheritance
- The Indian Succession Act
The Indian Succession Act governs the testamentary and intestate succession for individuals who are not governed under Hindu, Muslim or any other personal laws.
Under Section 2(h) it defines a will as a legal declaration of a person’s intention related to the distribution of property that the person has, after death.
““Will” means the legal declaration of the intention of a testator with respect to his property which he desires to be carried into effect after his death.”
And from the Section 5 of the same Act it could be inferred that it applies to both movable and immovable property.
“Law regulating succession to deceased person’s immoveable and moveable property, respectively”
However, the Act does not define or mention any points related to digital assets, like crypto currency, social media accounts or anything related to the same, the absence of including the concept of digital assets in a statute, the risk of getting exclusion of succession proceedings will be raised. .
- The Hindu Succession Act
The Hindu Succession Act, governs the intestate succession among Hindus. Similar to the Indian Succession Act, this Act also presumes ‘property’ to mean as tangible or the traditionally recognized intangible assets and does not include the digital assets. that leaves a huge number of income generating digital assets.
Though an argument can be raised that these digital assets might fall under ‘movable property’ as per the General Clauses Act, which mentions all property other than immovable as a movable property, there are no rules or precedents regarding it to apply this interpretation to platform based accounts. Where the legal gap persists.
3.2 Information Technology Act :Partial Recognition
The Information Technology Act was enacted to provide a legal recognition for electronic commerce, digital communications and cyber security.
“An Act to provide legal recognition for the transactions carried out by means of electronic data interchange and other means of electronic communication, commonly referred to as “Electronic Commerce”” .
While this Act recognises electronic records and digital signatures it does not address the inheritance of digital assets.
- Recognition of Electronic Records as Intangible Property
While this Act provides a small recognition to electronic data to be considered as a legally valid information, to prevent from unauthorized access or misuse, one might use this to argue that this shows the recognition to digitally stored content as a form of intangible property, which is a theoretical interpretation without any explicit recognition in statute
- Non-Recognition of Digital Wills under the IT Act
Under Section 1(4) of the Information Technology Act , along with Schedule I where it has listed specific transactions or documents explicitly, to exclude , that makes “wills” from the scope of valid electronic documents stating ;
“ 4. A will as defined in clause (h) of section 2 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (39 of 1925), including any other testamentary disposition by whatever name called.”
This means digital wills are not legally recognised and hence any testamentary intention that had been expressed through electronic formats are not legally enforceable even if there is a nomination in the platform.
CHAPTER 4 – PLATFORM POLICIES , TERMS OF SERVICE & INHERITANCE GAP
The inheritability of digital assets cannot be governed only by law, it is also dependent and in many cases restricted by the terms of Service which are set by the concerned online platforms. While few platforms provided limited mechanisms regarding the management of the user accounts after death, these provisions are discretionary and lack enforceability of formal inheritance laws.
This chapter examines how the platform’s terms are there, particularly in regard to Youtube and Google AdSense and the way it restricts the transfer of ownership or the monetization after death of the deceased user.
4.1 Non-Transferability in Platform Terms of Service
Most of the digital platforms set and operate under Terms of Service which include strict non-transferability clauses these clauses show that user accounts cannot be transferred and even after death as considered them to be personal.
For example, Yahoo! states that
“Unfortunately, Yahoo cannot provide passwords or allow access to the deceased’s account, including account content such as email. At the time of registration, all account holders agree to the Terms of Service (TOS). Pursuant to the Terms, neither the Yahoo account nor any of the content therein are transferable, even when the account owner is deceased.”
This approach shows that account as a personal and non-heritable license that is a non-transferable form of property.
Deceased User Management: Google and YouTube Policies
In the case of Youtube the platform’s Terms of Service does not explicitly address the user’s death, but it provides limited options through its Inactive Account Manager, which allows users to set instructions when their account is inactive for a longer period. This may include like deleting the account or sharing data with trusted member
The Google’s policy states that:
“In certain circumstances we may provide content from a deceased user’s account. In all of these cases, our primary responsibility is to keep people’s information secure, safe, and private. We cannot provide passwords or other login details. . We can work with immediate family members and representatives to close the account of a deceased person where appropriate.”
The language clearly shows that Google retains control to the deceased user accounts. Family members or the legal heirs may only request for account closure , but not granted ownership or access to those channels which makes the inheritance of digital assets as a contractual discretion and not as a protected right by law.
4.3 AdSense & Monetization: Barriers to Revenue Transfer
All the Youtube Channels income is managed through a Google AdSense account linked to the creator’s personal details, like to receive advertising revenue. Importantly those AdSense accounts are also not transferable.
If the original owner passes,
- the heirs can apply only to claim the unpaid income
- Cannot take over the AdSense account
- And cannot continue to receive income under the same account even if the channel is active and income is generated.
Which breaks the income that was received continuously, even after the asset, that is the YouTube channel gets views, without the means to transfer the AdSense account or to access the channel legally, the future revenue cannot be accessed.
The only means of getting this done, that is mostly suggested, is to put the channel in the name of a company or trust. Since, if a business entity owns the AdSense account rather than an individual, the ownership and control can be inherited through corporate succession rules, which may facilitate the removal of the limitations that exist through the Terms of Services.
4.4 Platform Rules
The platform policies provide mechanisms for handling accounts after their death,but it cannot be seen as a replacement for a legal recognition of it. . The Terms of Services are often framed in favour of the platforms than for the user rights and often contain clauses that deny the heirs claiming ownership.
As a result, the absence of a clear law to recognise digital assets under inheritance laws leaves the heir to lose access to the valuable assets, regardless of the commercial or sentimental value.
Until a clear law defines digital assets as property that the succession is present, the platforms will decide the outcomes of the digital assets. The inheritability of digital assets will remain to be bound by the private terms and not by public law.
CHAPTER 5- SUGGESTIONS
- As mentioned in the previous chapters, digital assets, including monetized Youtube channels, possess characteristics similar to movable property yet they are not applicable for inheritance without a clear classification. Therefore the law must recognise ‘digital assets’ as a separate category of movable property.
- Amendments to succession Law and the IT Act
- Indian Succession Act,1925
A new section or an explanation be amended to include ‘digital assets’ explicitly under inheritable property.
- Information Technology Act,2000
The exclusion of digital wills from legal recognition is not sufficient, since there is a constant increase in reliance on digital platforms for business and communications, and it is necessary to grant testamentary intent online itself.
- The section that excludes digitally executed wills from the Act under Schedule I should be reconsidered to allow the same.
- A new section to authorize digital asset management after the death of the user by legal representatives, with procedural safeguards.
- The existing law does not clearly mention or give any power to the executors to manage digital assets after a person’s death so a reform should be done to give authority over digital accounts to the executors. A mechanism to request platform account access by the heirs through a will or succession certificate.
- One practical way to resolve this issue which is being used is the formation of a corporate entity or trust to hold digital properties, so a simplification of registration and awareness to the same is needed at least as a temporary measure.
CONCLUSION
The growth of digital property, from social media accounts and monetized YouTube channels to crypto currency has redefined the term ‘property’ means in the current society. However, Indian law has not recognised this shift. The Indian Succession Act and the Information Technology Act, both were written and enacted in the pre-digital times, which do not include the inheritance of digital assets, which leaves their heirs and executors without any legal remedy to preserve or transfer the digital wealth.
Also, the platforms like Youtube and Google operate under Terms of Service, which are restrictive in case of transferring the accounts. The post death management is limited and discretionary. This makes the maintainability of the deceased users digital assets decided based on their will or legal rights, but based on the internal platform policy, which is unacceptable in a society governed by rule of law.
This paper has argued that monetized YouTube channels and other similar digital assets meet all the characteristics of inheritable property, they generate revenue which is built by intellectual efforts. They also deserve to be continued after the creator’s death, to bring changes to the gap the following steps has to be taken:
- Statutory recognition of digital assets as inheritable property
- Legal status for digital wills and executors
- Legal obligations on platforms for claims
Without a reform like this, the creators in India have the risk of losing their digital legacy to get erased and the heirs of the creators are left, leaving the sentimental and financial value that it possesses. As digital entrepreneurship is rising, the law must evolve to protect not only the digital lives but also digital afterlives.