The Utah Uniform Digital Assets Act (UUDDA), codified in Utah Code Title 75, Chapter 10, Part 10, governs the disposition of digital assets upon a person’s death. Section 75-10-1006 of the UUDDA addresses the duties of a digital asset fiduciary. Specifically, it outlines that a fiduciary, such as an executor or trustee, has a duty to act in accordance with the terms of a user’s online tool or service agreement. This means the fiduciary must adhere to the specific instructions provided by the user for the disposition of their digital assets through the platform’s interface, provided these instructions are lawful and do not contradict the user’s will or other estate planning documents. The act emphasizes respecting the user’s intent as expressed through these digital tools. The scenario involves a digital asset fiduciary who is tasked with managing an estate that includes cryptocurrency held on a specific online platform. The platform has a proprietary user agreement that dictates a specific procedure for account closure and asset distribution upon the account holder’s death, which differs from the general provisions in the deceased’s will regarding digital assets. Under the UUDDA, the fiduciary’s primary obligation is to follow the terms of the online tool’s agreement, as this is the mechanism by which the user intended to control their digital assets. Therefore, the fiduciary must comply with the platform’s specified procedure for distributing the cryptocurrency, even if it seems to diverge from the broader estate distribution plan laid out in the will, assuming the platform’s terms are not otherwise illegal or against public policy.

The Utah Digital Assets Act, codified in Utah Code Title 61, Chapter 1c, addresses the legal framework for digital assets. Specifically, Section 61-1c-301 outlines the requirements for a digital asset to be considered a security. A digital asset is presumed to be a security unless the issuer demonstrates that it is not. The burden of proof lies with the issuer. The Act provides a safe harbor for issuers who meet certain criteria, such as the asset being transferable only on a registered exchange or the issuer having a reasonable belief that the asset is not a security under federal law. However, the question asks about a scenario where an issuer *claims* an asset is not a security and has provided documentation to support this assertion, but the Act’s presumption still applies. The core of the question tests the understanding of who bears the burden of proof in Utah when an asset’s status as a security is questioned under the Act. Utah Code Section 61-1c-301(2) states, “A digital asset is presumed to be a security unless the issuer of the digital asset demonstrates that the digital asset is not a security.” This means the issuer must affirmatively prove the asset is not a security, regardless of their documentation or claims. Therefore, the issuer bears the burden of proof to overcome the presumption. The other options are incorrect because they misattribute the burden of proof or suggest a different legal standard not explicitly stated for this presumption within the Utah Digital Assets Act.

The Utah Digital Asset Act, specifically Utah Code § 7-50-101 et seq., governs the creation, ownership, and transfer of digital assets. When a financial institution holds a digital asset in a custodial relationship for a customer, and that customer dies, the Act outlines the procedures for transferring ownership of that digital asset. The Act generally prioritizes the terms of the user agreement between the customer and the financial institution. If the user agreement specifies a method for transferring digital assets upon death, that method is typically controlling. If the user agreement does not specify a method, or if the specified method is not permissible, the Act provides default rules. These default rules often involve presenting proof of death and proof of identity to the financial institution. The Act also contemplates the possibility of court orders or other legal directives. However, the primary mechanism for non-probate transfer of digital assets held by a custodian is usually dictated by the terms of the custodial agreement itself, provided those terms comply with the Act. The Act does not mandate that a financial institution must always wait for a court order if the custodial agreement clearly outlines a process for successor custodianship or beneficiary designations. The question asks about the most likely outcome for a financial institution holding a digital asset in custody when the customer dies, and the user agreement specifies a method for transfer. Therefore, the institution would follow the agreed-upon method.

The Utah Uniform Digital Assets Act (UUDAA), specifically Utah Code Ann. § 75-2-1301 et seq., governs the disposition of digital assets upon a person’s death. A critical aspect of this act is the distinction between “content” and “rights” associated with digital assets. “Content” refers to the actual data stored or transmitted, such as emails, photos, or documents. “Rights” pertain to the legal entitlements associated with those assets, like the right to access, modify, or control the content, or contractual rights with a service provider. Under the UUDAA, a digital asset custodian (a person or entity that holds a digital asset on behalf of another) must provide access to the digital asset to the user’s personal representative or designated beneficiary. The act prioritizes the terms of service of the online service provider if they conflict with the user’s will or other instructions regarding digital assets, but only to the extent that the terms of service do not unlawfully restrict the personal representative’s ability to access or control the digital asset. Specifically, Utah Code Ann. § 75-2-1302(2) states that a custodian may not deny a personal representative access to digital assets. However, § 75-2-1303(1) clarifies that the UUDAA does not override terms of service that are otherwise lawful. Therefore, while a custodian cannot outright deny access to a personal representative, they can enforce lawful terms of service that might govern the scope or manner of that access, particularly concerning proprietary content or specific usage restrictions. The question revolves around the custodian’s obligation to provide access to the personal representative, balanced against the terms of service. The UUDAA aims to balance the deceased’s intent with the practicalities of digital asset management and the contractual relationships with service providers.

The Utah Digital Signature Act, specifically Utah Code \(78B-5-701 et seq.\), governs the use and validity of electronic signatures and records. While the Act generally permits electronic signatures to have the same legal effect as their handwritten counterparts, there are specific requirements for certain types of transactions or documents. For instance, Utah law, like many other states, may have specific provisions regarding the creation, execution, and recordation of documents affecting real property. When a digital asset represents ownership or a security interest in real property, the underlying legal framework for property transfer in Utah would apply. This often necessitates the use of a wet-ink signature or a specific type of digitally authenticated signature that meets stringent evidentiary standards for real estate transactions, particularly for recording purposes with county recorders. The Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (UETA), adopted in Utah, provides a baseline for electronic transactions but does not override specific statutory requirements for certain documents. Therefore, a digital asset representing a fractional ownership interest in Utah real estate would likely require a signature method that is legally recognized for real property conveyances to ensure its validity and recordability, even if the asset itself is managed digitally. The key is to distinguish between the digital asset’s form and the underlying asset’s legal requirements for transfer.

The Utah Digital Assets Act, specifically Utah Code Title 7, Chapter 27, defines and regulates digital assets. Section 7-27-201 outlines the requirements for a person to be considered a “custodian” of digital assets. A custodian is generally defined as a person that holds a digital asset for the account of another person or that has control over a digital asset. The Act further specifies that a person who controls a digital asset on behalf of another person, or who has the ability to transfer or otherwise dispose of the digital asset, is considered to be acting as a custodian. This includes entities that provide services such as safekeeping, management, or transfer of digital assets. The scenario describes “CryptoSafeguard LLC,” a Utah-based entity that offers secure storage and management services for various cryptocurrencies, acting on behalf of its clients. By holding and managing these digital assets for its clients, CryptoSafeguard LLC clearly fits the definition of a custodian under Utah law. The Act’s provisions are designed to bring clarity and regulatory oversight to the burgeoning digital asset industry within Utah, ensuring that entities handling these assets operate with appropriate standards of care and security. The key element is the act of holding or controlling the digital asset for another person, which CryptoSafeguard LLC is doing.

The Utah Digital Signature Act, specifically Utah Code \(78B-5-306\), establishes the legal framework for electronic signatures and records. When determining the legal effect of an electronic signature, the Act focuses on whether the signature was made with the intent to sign the record. This intent is assessed by examining the context and circumstances surrounding the electronic record’s creation and transmission. Factors considered include the nature of the record, the relationship between the parties, and the actions taken by the signatory. For instance, if a party affixes an electronic signature to a digital asset purchase agreement after reviewing its terms and transmitting it through a secure channel, this strongly suggests intent to be bound. Conversely, an accidental or unauthorized electronic mark would not satisfy this intent requirement. The Act does not mandate specific technological standards for electronic signatures but rather focuses on the evidentiary showing of intent. Therefore, the core legal inquiry revolves around proving that the electronic act was performed with the deliberate purpose of authenticating the digital asset transaction.

The Utah Digital Assets Act, specifically Utah Code § 12-11-101 et seq., defines and regulates digital assets. When a digital asset is held by a financial institution as a custodian, the Act outlines the rights and responsibilities of both the custodian and the customer. The Act distinguishes between various types of digital assets, including virtual currency and other digital assets. The scenario describes a situation where a customer holds a “non-fungible token” (NFT) representing ownership of a unique piece of digital art. This NFT is stored on a blockchain and is managed by a financial institution acting as a custodian. The question probes the legal status of this NFT under Utah law, particularly concerning its classification and the rights afforded to the customer. Utah Code § 12-11-102(7) defines a “digital asset” broadly to include “a representation of economic, property, or other rights in an intangible or tangible item that is recorded in a distributed, digital, or other electronic manner.” An NFT, by its nature, represents ownership rights to a specific digital or even physical item and is recorded on a blockchain. Therefore, it clearly falls within this broad definition of a digital asset under Utah law. The Act then provides a framework for how these assets are treated, including the rights of the owner and the obligations of the custodian. The specific nature of the asset as an NFT representing unique digital art does not remove it from the purview of the Act; rather, it is a specific type of digital asset that the Act is designed to encompass. The Act’s purpose is to provide legal clarity and protection for holders and custodians of these emerging forms of property.

The Utah Digital Assets Act, specifically Utah Code Title 12, Chapter 18, addresses the legal status and transferability of digital assets. A crucial aspect of this act concerns the rights of beneficiaries in digital assets held in trust. When a grantor establishes a trust that includes digital assets, the trustee’s duties and the beneficiary’s rights are governed by both the trust instrument and the Digital Assets Act. The Act clarifies that a trustee of a trust containing digital assets has the right to access, control, and transfer those assets according to the terms of the trust, subject to any applicable legal or regulatory requirements. This is a fundamental principle that allows for the effective administration of digital assets within a trust structure. The Act does not create a separate, overriding right for beneficiaries to directly access or control digital assets independently of the trustee’s authority as defined by the trust and the Act. Instead, the beneficiary’s rights are typically exercised through the trustee’s actions in accordance with the trust’s provisions and the governing law. Therefore, a beneficiary’s ability to access digital assets held in a trust is contingent upon the trustee’s fulfillment of their fiduciary duties as outlined in the trust agreement and Utah law, rather than an independent statutory right to bypass the trustee.

The Utah Digital Assets Act, specifically Utah Code Title 12, Chapter 46, addresses the legal status and transfer of digital assets. When a digital asset owner dies, the method of transferring ownership depends on whether the owner has a will or a trust, and the terms of those documents. If a valid will or trust designates a beneficiary for specific digital assets, or provides a mechanism for their distribution, the personal representative or trustee must follow those instructions. The Act clarifies that digital assets are not automatically subject to the same distribution rules as tangible property. For instance, a financial institution holding a digital asset cannot unilaterally grant access to a deceased customer’s account without proper legal authorization, even if they have a contractual relationship. The Act emphasizes the importance of explicit provisions within estate planning documents for the disposition of digital assets. It allows for the appointment of a digital asset agent within a will or other record, who can manage or distribute these assets according to the owner’s wishes. Without such specific instructions, the digital assets would typically be treated as part of the residuary estate, subject to the general probate process, which can be cumbersome for digital assets. The Act also acknowledges that terms of service agreements with digital asset custodians may influence how these assets are handled post-mortem, but these terms cannot override clear testamentary or trust instructions. Therefore, the most direct and legally sound method for transferring a digital asset to a designated recipient upon death, as per Utah law, is through the provisions of a valid will or trust that specifically addresses such assets.

Utah’s Digital Signature Act, found in Utah Code Title 46, Chapter 2, governs the legal recognition of electronic signatures and records. A critical aspect of this act relates to the validity of digital signatures created by a “secured electronic signature device” or a “certification authority.” When a digital signature is affixed using a method that meets specific statutory requirements, it is presumed to be a valid electronic signature. This presumption can be rebutted by evidence showing that the signature was not created by the purported signatory or that the signature process was compromised. The act emphasizes that an electronic signature is attributable to a person if it was the act of that person. The validity of a digital signature is not solely dependent on the technology used but also on adherence to legal standards for its creation and use, ensuring authenticity and integrity. The burden of proof shifts to the party challenging the signature’s validity. The Utah Digital Signature Act aligns with the broader principles of the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (UETA), which many states have adopted, to promote the use and validity of electronic transactions.

The Utah Digital Assets Act, specifically Utah Code Title 12, Chapter 47, addresses the legal status and transfer of digital assets. Section 12-47-201 outlines the general definition of a digital asset, encompassing any right or interest in a digital asset that is not a commodity or security. This definition is broad and includes, but is not limited to, virtual currencies, non-fungible tokens (NFTs), and other forms of digital property. The Act further clarifies in Section 12-47-302 that a digital asset is not created or evidenced by a tangible medium. The scenario describes a creator in Utah who developed a unique digital artwork, represented by a cryptographic token on a blockchain, and sold it to a collector in California. The key aspect here is the nature of the asset as a digital representation of ownership and value, not tied to a physical object. Therefore, it squarely falls under the definition of a digital asset as defined by Utah law, regardless of the buyer’s location or the underlying blockchain technology. The Act’s purpose is to provide a legal framework for the ownership, transfer, and administration of these assets within Utah, even when transactions involve parties in other jurisdictions. The character of the asset as a digital representation, lacking a tangible medium, is central to its classification under this statute.

The Utah Digital Assets Act, specifically Utah Code Title 12, Chapter 20, addresses the legal framework for digital assets. When a custodian, as defined in the Act, holds digital assets for another person, the Act generally governs the relationship. Section 12-20-302 outlines the rights and duties of a custodian concerning a customer’s digital assets. It clarifies that a custodian holds legal title to the digital assets but has a fiduciary duty to the owner. This fiduciary duty requires the custodian to act in the best interest of the owner and to manage the assets prudently. The Act distinguishes between different types of digital assets, but the core principle of fiduciary responsibility for custodians remains consistent. Therefore, a custodian of digital assets in Utah is generally understood to have a fiduciary obligation to the asset owner, meaning they must act with the utmost good faith and loyalty. This is a fundamental aspect of trust law and is applied to the digital asset context by the Utah legislature.

The Utah Digital Signature Act, specifically Utah Code Ann. § 46-2-101 et seq., governs the use of electronic signatures and records. When a digital asset is transferred, the validity of the transfer is often contingent on the method of authentication and the governing law. In Utah, a digital asset is defined broadly, and its transfer can be effected through various means, including those recognized by the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) as adopted in Utah, particularly concerning the transfer of intangible personal property. The Uniform Commercial Code, as enacted in Utah, provides a framework for the transfer of rights in digital assets, especially when they are represented or controlled through specific systems. The Act’s emphasis on the intent of the parties and the method of transfer is crucial. For a digital asset to be considered validly transferred, the transfer must be authorized by the owner and executed in a manner that clearly demonstrates the owner’s intent to transfer dominion and control over the asset. This often involves the use of private keys or other cryptographic means that are uniquely attributable to the owner. The legal effect of such a transfer is to convey ownership and control to the recipient. Therefore, a transfer of a digital asset is legally recognized in Utah if it is authorized by the owner and executed in a manner that demonstrably transfers control, aligning with principles of property law and the specific provisions of Utah’s digital asset legislation and its adoption of relevant UCC articles.

Utah’s Digital Signature Act, codified in Utah Code Title 46, Chapter 2, provides a legal framework for electronic signatures and records. A crucial aspect of this act pertains to the admissibility of digital signatures in legal proceedings. Section 46-2-104 of the Utah Code establishes that a digital signature is legally valid and admissible in evidence if it meets specific criteria. These criteria include that the signature must be unique to the person executing it, capable of verification, under the sole control of the person, and linked to the data in such a way that any subsequent alteration of the data is detectable. When these conditions are met, the digital signature is generally considered to have the same legal effect as a handwritten signature. Therefore, a digital signature that adheres to these statutory requirements, as demonstrated by a reliable audit trail and cryptographic proof of integrity, would be admissible in a Utah court. The act emphasizes that the burden of proof regarding the authenticity and integrity of a digital signature rests on the party seeking to rely upon it. However, the statute creates a presumption of validity if the requirements are met, shifting the burden to the opposing party to demonstrate invalidity. This ensures that digital transactions can be reliably authenticated and accepted within the legal system.

The Utah Digital Assets Act, codified in Utah Code Title 60-1, Chapter 1, et seq., addresses the legal status and treatment of digital assets. A key aspect of this act is its definition of “digital asset” and the framework it establishes for their transfer and management, particularly in the context of estate planning and the Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (UFUADAA). When a person dies, their digital assets, much like tangible property, become part of their estate and are subject to distribution. The Act clarifies how a fiduciary, such as an executor or trustee, can access and manage these assets. Crucially, the Act distinguishes between the content of a digital asset and the asset itself, and it prioritizes the terms of service of a digital asset custodian unless the user has explicitly provided instructions in a will, trust, or separate power of attorney for digital assets. The Act also outlines specific procedures for fiduciaries to follow when requesting access, including providing proof of authority and identifying the specific digital assets. The intent is to provide a clear legal pathway for managing digital assets after death, balancing the decedent’s wishes with the privacy and security interests of the custodian and other beneficiaries. The Act’s provisions are designed to prevent ambiguity and ensure that digital assets are not lost or inaccessible due to a lack of clear legal guidelines, aligning with the broader national trend of updating property law to encompass the digital realm.

The Utah Digital Assets Act, specifically Utah Code § 60-1-101 et seq., defines and regulates digital assets. A key aspect of this act is its treatment of various types of digital assets and the legal frameworks that apply to them. When a digital asset is created or mined, it often involves complex processes that may fall under different legal classifications depending on its characteristics and purpose. The question probes the understanding of how a newly created or “mined” digital asset, distinct from a commodity or security, is legally categorized under Utah law. The Utah Digital Assets Act explicitly addresses digital assets that are not otherwise commodities or securities. Therefore, a digital asset that is not a commodity and not a security, but is created through a process akin to mining, would fall under the general definition of a digital asset as contemplated by the Act. This would include cryptocurrencies or other digital tokens generated through distributed ledger technology, provided they do not meet the specific criteria for commodities or securities as defined by federal or state law. The Act’s purpose is to provide a clear legal framework for these novel forms of property.

Utah’s Digital Signature Act, specifically Utah Code Title 46 Chapter 2, governs the use and legal recognition of digital signatures. The act defines a digital signature as a transformation of a message using an asymmetric cryptosystem such that a person who knows the system can verify that the transformation was created by a specific person, and that the message has not been altered since the transformation was made. For a digital signature to be legally effective, it must meet certain criteria, including being unique to the signatory, capable of identifying the signatory, created by means the signatory can control, and linked to the data in such a manner that any subsequent alteration of the data will be detectable. The act also addresses the role of a trusted third-party certification authority in verifying the identity of the signatory and issuing digital certificates. When a digital signature is used in conjunction with a digital certificate issued by a licensed certification authority in Utah, it creates a presumption of validity and authenticity, similar to a wet-ink signature. This presumption can be rebutted by evidence showing the signature was not valid or that the digital certificate was not valid at the time of signing. Therefore, the legal effectiveness hinges on adherence to the statutory requirements for both the signature itself and the underlying certificate.

The Utah Digital Assets Act, specifically Utah Code Ann. § 60-1-302, addresses the transfer of digital assets upon the death of the owner. This statute establishes a framework for how digital assets are handled, distinguishing between different types of digital assets and the methods by which they can be transferred. The Act prioritizes the terms of service of a digital asset custodian and any user agreement or contract between the custodian and the user. If these agreements do not specify a method for transfer upon death, or if they prohibit such transfer, the Act then looks to the user’s estate plan. Specifically, a user can direct the transfer of their digital assets through a will, trust, or power of attorney for digital assets. These estate planning documents must be specific in their intent to transfer digital assets. If none of these methods are provided, the Act outlines a default distribution scheme, treating digital assets as personal property and distributing them according to the laws of intestacy or the general provisions of the estate plan. The question hinges on understanding that while a will is a primary method for directing digital asset transfer, it must be properly executed and specifically reference digital assets or provide a general residuary clause that encompasses them, in the absence of other explicit instructions or prohibitions by the custodian. The scenario involves a will that predates the digital asset’s creation and doesn’t specifically mention digital assets, nor does the custodian’s terms of service provide a mechanism. In such a case, the will’s general residuary clause would likely govern the distribution of any digital assets not otherwise accounted for by the custodian’s terms or specific provisions within the estate plan. Therefore, the effectiveness of the will depends on its ability to capture these assets under its general disposition.

Utah’s Digital Signature Act, codified in Utah Code Title 46, Chapter 2, establishes the legal framework for digital signatures and electronic records. A key aspect is the recognition of digital signatures as legally equivalent to handwritten signatures, provided they meet specific requirements. These requirements often involve the use of a secure digital signature creation device and a reliable certification process. When considering the enforceability of a digital signature on a digital asset transaction within Utah, the focus is on whether the signature reliably associates the signatory with the digital asset and indicates the signatory’s approval of the content. This involves an assessment of the technology used, the process by which the signature was affixed, and the integrity of the digital asset itself. The act also addresses the role of certification authorities and the legal effect of their attestations. The question probes the understanding of how Utah law validates digital signatures in the context of digital asset transactions, emphasizing the evidentiary standards and the legal presumptions that arise from a compliant digital signature. The core principle is that a digital signature is presumed to be a legal signature if it is attached to or logically associated with an electronic record and the process used to create the signature meets certain reliability standards, making the signatory identifiable and the record unaltered.

The Utah Digital Assets Act, specifically Utah Code Title 12, Chapter 27, addresses the legal status and treatment of digital assets. This act defines a digital asset broadly, encompassing virtual currencies, and also includes other forms of digital property that are not currency. The key distinction for the purpose of this question lies in the Act’s treatment of digital assets that are not “virtual currencies.” Utah Code Section 12-27-102(15) defines “virtual currency” as a digital representation of value that is used as a medium of exchange, unit of account, or store of value, and that is not legal tender in any jurisdiction. However, the Act also covers other digital assets that may not fit this narrow definition of virtual currency but still represent ownership or rights. When a digital asset is held in a trust and the trust instrument does not specify the governing law for the digital asset’s administration, the Act provides a framework for determining which jurisdiction’s law applies. Utah Code Section 12-27-301(1) states that if a digital asset is held in a trust and the trust instrument does not specify the governing law, the governing law of the trust’s situs applies to the digital asset. The situs of a trust is generally determined by the trust instrument or, in its absence, by the law of the state where the trust is administered. In this scenario, since the trust instrument is silent regarding the governing law for the digital asset, and the trust is administered in Utah, Utah law would govern the administration of that digital asset. Therefore, the Utah Digital Assets Act would apply.

The Utah Digital Assets Act, specifically Utah Code Ann. § 60-1-101 et seq., addresses the legal framework for digital assets. When a custodian of a digital asset, such as a cryptocurrency wallet provider, is subject to a legal process in Utah, the Act outlines the procedures for accessing and controlling those assets. A subpoena issued by a Utah court, when properly served on the custodian, compels the custodian to disclose information and, in certain circumstances, to transfer control of the digital asset. The Act distinguishes between different types of digital assets and the corresponding legal instruments that can be used to compel action. For a digital asset held by a custodian, a subpoena is the appropriate legal process to compel the custodian to act. The subpoena must be validly issued and served according to Utah’s Rules of Civil Procedure. The custodian’s obligation is to comply with the subpoena, which may involve providing access credentials or transferring the asset to a court-controlled account or a designated party. The Act does not mandate that the digital asset owner be directly notified of the subpoena’s issuance by the court itself, although the legal process may require notification by the party issuing the subpoena depending on the specific circumstances and other applicable laws. The core principle is that the custodian is the party legally bound to respond to the subpoena for assets under their control.

The Utah Digital Assets Act, specifically Utah Code Title 60-1, addresses the legal framework for digital assets. When considering a digital asset that is not a security and not a commodity, its classification and the regulatory implications under Utah law are crucial. Utah Code Section 60-1-201(10) defines a “digital asset” broadly to include “a representation of economic, property, or contract rights in a digital or other intangible form.” However, the Act distinguishes between various types of digital assets, particularly in relation to the jurisdiction of the Division of Securities. Utah Code Section 60-1-302(1) states that the Division of Securities does not have jurisdiction over a digital asset that is not a security or a commodity. Therefore, if a digital asset is neither a security nor a commodity, it falls outside the direct purview of the Division of Securities concerning registration and oversight as a security. This distinction is vital for issuers and holders of digital assets, as it dictates the applicable regulatory framework. The Act prioritizes a functional approach, looking at the substance of the digital asset’s characteristics rather than just its label. The core principle is to avoid unnecessary regulation for digital assets that do not pose the same risks as traditional securities or commodities.

The Utah Uniform Digital Assets Act (UUDATA), codified in Utah Code Title 75, Chapter 2a, governs the rights and responsibilities concerning digital assets upon a person’s death. Specifically, UUDATA Section 75-2a-107 outlines how a digital asset custodian must respond to a request for disclosure. A custodian may, but is not required to, decline a request if the request is legally objectionable or unduly burdensome. However, the act provides specific circumstances under which a custodian *must* comply. Section 75-2a-107(b) states that a custodian shall comply with a request for disclosure if the request is accompanied by evidence of the user’s death and a copy of a valid, unrevoked power of attorney that specifically grants the user’s agent authority to access the user’s digital assets. Without both a valid power of attorney that explicitly grants authority over digital assets and proof of death, the custodian is not mandated to disclose the content. Other provisions, like a general will, do not automatically grant the necessary authority for digital asset access under UUDATA unless they are specifically incorporated by reference or the will itself is deemed a valid digital asset instruction. Therefore, the presence of a power of attorney specifically authorizing access to digital assets, coupled with proof of death, is the critical trigger for mandatory disclosure by the custodian.

The Utah Digital Signature Act, specifically Utah Code Title 46 Chapter 2, governs the legal recognition and effect of electronic signatures and records. While the Act primarily focuses on the validity of digital signatures in general commerce, it does not create a specific, overarching regulatory framework for all forms of digital assets as defined in broader, emerging legal discussions, such as those potentially covered by the Utah Digital Asset Act (Utah Code Title 19 Chapter 7). The question asks about the primary regulatory authority for digital assets in Utah, considering the specific context of the Digital Signature Act. The Digital Signature Act’s scope is limited to the legal recognition of electronic signatures and records, not the broader classification, regulation, or licensing of digital assets themselves. Therefore, while digital assets might utilize digital signatures, the Digital Signature Act is not the principal regulatory body for the assets themselves. The Utah Division of Securities, under the purview of the Utah Uniform Securities Act (Utah Code Title 61 Chapter 1), often plays a significant role in regulating digital assets that are deemed securities. The Utah Division of Consumer Protection might have some oversight depending on the nature of the digital asset and its marketing, but securities regulation is typically more direct for investment-related digital assets. The Utah Department of Commerce is the overarching department, but the Division of Securities is the specific agency responsible for securities regulation, which frequently encompasses digital assets.

The Utah Digital Assets Act, specifically Utah Code § 12-2-101 et seq., addresses the legal framework for digital assets. When a custodian of a digital asset receives a request from a person who claims to be a beneficiary of a deceased owner, the custodian must follow specific procedures to determine the rightful recipient. The Act outlines that a custodian can deliver the digital asset to a beneficiary pursuant to the owner’s terms of service or a court order. If the owner has not provided explicit instructions for distribution upon death within the terms of service, the custodian is generally permitted to distribute the asset to the beneficiary designated in a valid will or, in the absence of a will, according to the laws of intestacy of Utah. The Act emphasizes the importance of the owner’s intent and the legal documentation governing the asset’s disposition. The scenario describes a custodian receiving a request from a purported beneficiary, and the owner’s terms of service did not specify a distribution method upon death. In such a case, the custodian must rely on the legal framework for estate distribution. The Utah Digital Assets Act permits custodians to rely on a court order or, if no court order exists, to distribute the asset according to the owner’s estate plan, which includes a will or intestacy laws. Therefore, the custodian should follow the procedures for estate distribution as dictated by Utah law.

The Utah Digital Signature Act, found in Utah Code Title 46 Chapter 2, governs the use of electronic signatures and records. Specifically, Section 46-2-302 addresses the validity of electronic signatures. It states that an electronic signature is legally attributable to a person if it is the unique result of that person’s action and can be reliably associated with that person. The act further specifies that the method used to create the electronic signature must be reasonable in the context of the transaction. In this scenario, the use of a private key cryptographically linked to a digital certificate issued by a trusted Certificate Authority (CA) provides a high degree of assurance regarding the identity of the signatory and the integrity of the signed document. This cryptographic link, coupled with the CA’s verification process, establishes a reliable association between the signature and the individual, fulfilling the requirements of Utah law for the validity of an electronic signature in a digital asset transaction. The fact that the digital asset is subject to specific blockchain protocols does not negate the applicability of the Digital Signature Act for the legal authentication of the transaction’s authorization, as the act applies broadly to electronic records and signatures. The question hinges on whether the method employed meets the statutory standard for attribution and reliability.

The Utah Digital Asset Securities Act (UDASA), specifically Utah Code § 7-15-101 et seq., defines and regulates digital assets. The Act distinguishes between consumer digital assets and control digital assets. A control digital asset is defined as a digital asset that, by its nature, confers upon its holder the power to exercise control over the issuer or the underlying asset or enterprise. This control element is paramount. In the scenario presented, the blockchain-based token grants its holder the ability to vote on proposals affecting the development roadmap and treasury allocation of the decentralized autonomous organization (DAO). This voting right, conferring direct influence over the issuer’s operational direction and financial decisions, clearly aligns with the definition of a control digital asset. Therefore, the digital asset in question would be classified as a control digital asset under Utah law.

The Utah Uniform Digital Assets Act (UUDAA), codified in Utah Code Title 75, Chapter 10, Part 10, governs the rights and responsibilities concerning digital assets upon a person’s death. Specifically, Utah Code Section 75-10-1006 addresses the rights of a digital asset custodian. This section outlines that a custodian must provide a digital asset to a beneficiary who is entitled to it under the user’s will, trust, or other applicable law. The act defines “digital asset” broadly, encompassing electronic records in which the user has a right or interest, including email accounts, social media accounts, and digital currency. The key principle is that the custodian is bound by the terms of service and the user’s instructions, as well as applicable law. When a user’s will or trust specifically directs the disposition of digital assets, the custodian must comply with these instructions, provided they are legally valid and presented to the custodian in the required manner. The UUDAA aims to provide a framework for the orderly transfer of digital assets, respecting the user’s intent and the custodian’s operational requirements. It does not, however, grant the custodian the right to unilaterally decide the disposition of digital assets in contravention of a valid will or trust instrument. The act emphasizes a contractual relationship between the user and the custodian, with the user’s testamentary intent taking precedence in the distribution process.

The Utah Digital Assets Act, specifically Utah Code Title 7, Chapter 51, addresses the classification and treatment of digital assets. A key aspect of this act is defining what constitutes a “digital asset” and how these assets are handled in various legal contexts, including inheritance. The Act broadly defines digital assets to encompass any right or interest in a digital representation of value that is created, stored, or transmitted in electronic form. This definition is intended to be inclusive of a wide range of digital items, from cryptocurrencies to digital collectibles. When considering the transfer of digital assets upon the death of the owner, the Act generally aligns with the treatment of other intangible personal property, unless specific provisions dictate otherwise. The Act distinguishes between different types of digital assets, such as “custodial” and “non-custodial” assets, which can affect how they are managed and transferred. For non-custodial digital assets, where the owner retains exclusive control over the private keys, the Act generally permits the owner to specify the terms of their distribution through an estate plan, similar to how they might direct the disposition of other personal property. The Act does not create a separate, unique category of property for all digital assets that would override existing estate planning principles. Instead, it clarifies how existing legal frameworks apply to these new forms of property. Therefore, the primary legal mechanism for directing the disposition of a non-custodial digital asset, such as a unique digital artwork stored on a blockchain and controlled by private keys held by the owner, would be through a valid will or trust, in accordance with general estate law principles as interpreted and applied within the context of digital assets by the Utah Digital Assets Act. The Act’s intent is to provide clarity and predictability for individuals and their estates dealing with digital property.