The Michigan Trust Code, specifically MCL 700.7601, defines a digital asset as an electronic record that the owner of an electronic record has a right to possess or control. This definition is crucial for understanding how digital assets are treated under Michigan law, particularly in estate planning and trust administration. The law further categorizes digital assets into two types: those with inherent value, such as cryptocurrency or digital currency, and those that are personal in nature, like emails, digital photos, or social media accounts. The key distinction for the purpose of this question lies in the right of possession or control. While a user may create or contribute to an online platform, their legal right to possess or control the underlying data, especially when it resides on a third-party server and is subject to terms of service, can be complex. The Michigan Digital Assets Law, enacted as part of the Revised Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (RUFADAA), aims to clarify how fiduciaries can access and manage a decedent’s digital assets. However, the fundamental definition hinges on the owner’s right to possess or control the electronic record. Therefore, an electronic record that an individual has the legal right to possess or control, regardless of its inherent monetary value or whether it’s personal or financial in nature, fits the statutory definition of a digital asset under Michigan law. This includes subscription-based digital content where the user has a license to access and use the content, which implies a degree of control, even if not outright ownership of the underlying code or server.

The Michigan Digital Asset Law, specifically Public Act 330 of 2014, addresses the rights and responsibilities concerning digital assets upon a person’s death or incapacitation. This act establishes a framework for how digital assets are managed, granting custodians the authority to provide access to authorized persons, such as fiduciaries or beneficiaries, based on the user’s intent as expressed in a digital asset will or other controlling document. A critical aspect is the distinction between a custodian’s terms of service and the user’s explicit instructions. If a user has not provided clear instructions, the custodian’s terms of service will govern access. However, when a user has executed a valid digital asset will or a will that specifically references digital assets, and this document directs the disposition of those assets, it generally overrides the custodian’s standard terms of service regarding access by designated beneficiaries or executors. The law emphasizes the user’s intent as paramount. Therefore, a will that specifically directs access to a particular digital asset, even if it conflicts with a custodian’s general terms of service, would be the controlling document for granting access to the named executor for the purpose of estate administration.

The Michigan Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (MUFADAA), codified in MCL § 710.101 et seq., provides a framework for fiduciaries to access a user’s digital assets. Specifically, MCL § 710.107 addresses the limitations on a fiduciary’s authority when a digital asset service provider has a specific term of service that conflicts with the user’s intent or the fiduciary’s access. In such cases, the provider’s terms of service generally govern, unless a court order directs otherwise or the terms of service are deemed unconscionable. The Act aims to balance the user’s privacy and control over their digital assets with the fiduciary’s need to manage those assets. A key principle is that a fiduciary’s authority is generally limited by the provider’s terms of service, which can restrict access to certain types of digital assets or impose specific conditions for access. This is a critical distinction from how physical assets might be handled, where a fiduciary’s authority is often more direct and less subject to third-party terms. The Michigan law, mirroring the Uniform Act, prioritizes the contractual relationship between the user and the digital asset service provider when it comes to access.

The Michigan Digital Asset Law, specifically MCL 700.2501 et seq., governs the rights and responsibilities of individuals concerning their digital assets after death. A digital asset, as defined by the statute, is an electronic record that has value. This includes, but is not limited to, emails, digital photographs, digital music, and digital documents. When a person dies, their digital assets are subject to disposition by their will, trust, or other legally binding document. If the decedent’s estate plan does not specifically address digital assets, the law provides default rules. A critical aspect of this law is the concept of a “digital asset representative” or the executor of the estate, who is granted the authority to manage these assets. The law emphasizes the importance of user agreements and terms of service that govern access to digital assets, as these can sometimes override the decedent’s wishes or the estate plan. For instance, many online service providers have terms that restrict the transfer or access to accounts upon a user’s death, even if the will directs otherwise. Therefore, an executor must navigate these contractual limitations. The Michigan statute allows a user to grant specific authority to a person in their will, trust, or a separate document to control their digital assets. Without such explicit authorization, the executor’s ability to access and manage these assets is more constrained, often requiring court orders or direct consent from the service provider, which may be difficult to obtain. The law aims to provide a framework for the orderly transfer of digital property, balancing the decedent’s intent with the privacy rights of others and the terms of service of online platforms.

The Michigan Trust Code, specifically MCL 700.7101 et seq., governs the creation, administration, and termination of trusts in Michigan. When considering digital assets within a trust, the Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (UFADAA), as adopted and modified in Michigan (MCL 700.7871 et seq.), provides the legal framework. This act clarifies how a fiduciary, such as a trustee, can access and manage a user’s digital assets. A key aspect is the distinction between the content of digital assets and the electronic devices or accounts that store them. Under UFADAA, a fiduciary’s authority to access digital assets is generally conferred through a “user direction.” This direction can be found in a will, trust, power of attorney, or a separate record. The law prioritizes the user’s intent. If a trust instrument explicitly grants the trustee the power to access and manage specific digital assets, and this grant is not contradicted by a user direction in a separate record, the trustee can act. However, the trustee’s access is limited to what is necessary to administer the trust. This means they can manage, control, convert, or transfer the digital asset, or access the lawful contents of the digital asset for the purpose of administering the trust. The trustee cannot, however, use their access to obtain further digital assets or to engage in unlawful activities. The trustee’s duty of loyalty and care, as outlined in the Michigan Trust Code, extends to the management of these digital assets. Therefore, a trustee with express authority in a trust instrument to manage digital assets, and who acts in accordance with the UFADAA provisions, is empowered to do so, provided it aligns with the settlor’s intent and the trust’s purpose.

The Michigan Digital Asset Law, specifically MCL 700.7701 et seq., governs the rights and responsibilities of individuals and fiduciaries concerning digital assets upon a person’s death or incapacity. A key aspect of this law is the distinction between access to digital assets and the content of those assets. When a user grants access to a digital asset through a digital asset service provider’s terms of service, the provider is obligated to grant access to the fiduciary or designated recipient as directed by the user’s instructions or the law. This access is typically limited to what the user could have accessed. However, the law differentiates this from the right to disclose or copy the content of the digital asset. While a fiduciary may be granted access to view or manage digital assets, the underlying terms of service of the digital asset provider, or specific legal protections related to privacy and intellectual property, may restrict the fiduciary’s ability to further disclose or duplicate the content without explicit authorization or a court order. Therefore, even with access granted, the subsequent actions of the fiduciary regarding the content are subject to additional legal considerations beyond the initial access provision. The Michigan law aims to balance the user’s intent for digital asset disposition with the privacy rights of others and the terms established by service providers.

The Michigan Digital Assets Law, specifically MCL 700.2701 et seq., governs the rights and responsibilities concerning digital assets upon a person’s death or incapacitation. This law establishes a hierarchy of control. Initially, a user can grant access to their digital assets through an online tool or account agreement. If no such tool is provided or if it’s insufficient, the law then looks to the user’s will or other estate planning documents. If the will or other documents do not provide instructions, control defaults to the user’s representative, which is typically the executor or personal representative of the estate, as defined by Michigan probate law. The representative then has the authority to access, manage, or terminate digital assets consistent with the user’s intent and the terms of service of the digital asset provider. The law prioritizes the user’s explicit instructions. In the absence of explicit instructions, it provides a clear framework for the personal representative to manage these assets, ensuring that digital assets are not lost or inaccessible simply because they are digital. The law aims to balance the user’s privacy with the need for efficient estate administration.

The Michigan Digital Asset Law, specifically MCL 700.7101 et seq., governs the rights and responsibilities concerning digital assets. When a user establishes an account with a digital service provider, they typically enter into a terms of service agreement. This agreement often dictates how the provider will handle the user’s digital assets upon their death or incapacitation. The law prioritizes the user’s intent as expressed in their account agreements or through other legally recognized means. Absent such explicit instructions, the law provides default provisions. In this scenario, the user, Anya, did not designate a specific person to receive her online journal and associated digital content. The terms of service for “ChronoLog” do not contain a provision for digital asset succession. Therefore, the default provisions of the Michigan Digital Asset Law apply. The law generally treats digital assets as personal property. In the absence of a will or specific designation, personal property typically passes according to intestacy laws. However, the Michigan Digital Asset Law provides a framework for digital asset custodians to follow. MCL 700.7104(1) states that a custodian shall grant a fiduciary or a designated recipient access to the digital asset of a deceased user. MCL 700.7105(1) further clarifies that if the user has not provided instructions, the custodian shall grant access to a fiduciary of the user’s estate. A fiduciary of the estate, such as an executor or administrator, is the legally appointed representative responsible for managing the deceased’s assets, including digital ones, according to the will or intestacy laws. Therefore, the executor of Anya’s estate is the proper party to receive access to her ChronoLog account.

The Michigan Digital Asset Law, specifically MCL 700.7701 et seq., governs the rights and responsibilities concerning digital assets upon a person’s death or incapacity. A crucial aspect of this law is the distinction between access to digital assets and the ownership of the content within those assets. When an estate representative, such as a personal representative or trustee, seeks access to a decedent’s digital assets, they are generally granted the right to access the content of those assets, provided the terms of service of the digital asset custodian do not prohibit such access. This access is for the purpose of administering the estate. However, the law does not confer ownership of the underlying digital content itself upon the estate representative. Ownership of the digital content remains governed by copyright law and the terms of service agreements associated with the digital asset. Therefore, while the personal representative can access emails, documents, or social media posts to manage the estate, they do not automatically gain ownership rights to the creative works or personal data contained within those assets. The question probes the understanding of this fundamental distinction between access for estate administration and the acquisition of ownership rights, which is a nuanced point often tested in digital asset law. The correct answer reflects that access is granted for estate purposes, but ownership of the content is not transferred.

The Michigan Digital Asset Law, specifically MCL 700.7101 et seq. (Revised Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act), governs how a person’s digital assets are handled after their death or incapacitation. A digital asset is defined as an electronic record that the user has a right to access and that is in the user’s possession or control. This includes items like email accounts, social media profiles, cloud storage, and digital currency. When an individual creates an estate plan, they can grant specific instructions or authority regarding their digital assets through a “digital asset power of attorney” or by designating a “digital asset fiduciary” in their will or trust. The law prioritizes the user’s intent as expressed in these documents. If no such designation is made, or if the user’s intent is unclear, the fiduciary of the estate (e.g., executor or trustee) may petition the court for access. However, the law also respects the terms of service agreements of online platforms. A service provider can deny access to a digital asset if its terms of service prohibit disclosure to a fiduciary or representative. The law aims to balance the fiduciary’s duty to administer the estate with the privacy interests of both the deceased user and the service provider. It provides a framework for granting access, but the ultimate accessibility often depends on the platform’s policies and the clarity of the user’s directives. The concept of “digital asset custodian” is also relevant, as they are the entities that hold and manage the digital assets. The law outlines the duties and liabilities of these custodians when presented with a valid request from a fiduciary. It is important to distinguish between simply having access to an account and having the right to control or distribute the assets within it. The Michigan law provides a tiered approach to access, with specific types of digital assets potentially having different access protocols based on their nature and the user’s intent.

The Michigan Digital Assets Law, specifically MCL 700.2901 et seq., addresses the rights and responsibilities concerning digital assets upon a person’s death or incapacitation. A digital asset is defined as an electronic record that the value of which is determined by its content and is capable of being transferred by a user. This includes, but is not limited to, email, instant messages, digital photos, videos, documents, and online accounts. The law distinguishes between the content of a digital asset and the account or service in which it is stored. Under Michigan law, a custodian of a digital asset may not disclose to any other person the digital content of the communication of a deceased user unless the custodian has obtained the user’s written consent to disclosure or is otherwise authorized to disclose the content by law. However, the law does permit the disclosure of a user’s digital assets to a fiduciary, such as an executor or trustee, who has been granted legal authority to access such assets. This access is typically granted through a court order or a specific provision in a will or trust instrument that explicitly grants authority over digital assets. The intent of the law is to balance the privacy interests of the deceased user with the legitimate needs of their estate to manage and distribute their digital property. Therefore, a fiduciary cannot unilaterally access the content of a deceased user’s digital communications without proper authorization, even if they have general authority over the deceased’s estate. The specific grant of authority for digital assets is crucial.

The Michigan Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (MUFADAA), codified in MCL § 700.7101 et seq., governs how fiduciaries can access a deceased or incapacitated person’s digital assets. A key aspect of this act is the distinction between a user’s intent expressed in a digital asset control document and the terms of service of an online platform. While a control document generally takes precedence, service providers may have specific provisions that limit a fiduciary’s access, particularly concerning content that is private or proprietary to the service provider. In this scenario, the cryptocurrency exchange’s terms of service explicitly prohibit the disclosure of a user’s trading history and account balances to third parties, including fiduciaries, without the provider’s consent or a court order. This contractual limitation, even if it conflicts with the user’s expressed intent in their digital estate plan, can be enforced by the service provider. Therefore, while the user’s digital estate plan designates their executor as the fiduciary with access, the exchange’s terms of service create a valid contractual barrier to the executor’s direct access to the specific trading data. The executor may need to pursue legal avenues, such as a court order, to compel the exchange to release the information, as the terms of service act as a binding agreement between the user and the platform.

The Michigan Digital Assets Law, specifically MCL §700.1201 et seq., governs the rights and responsibilities concerning digital assets upon a person’s death or incapacitation. A user’s digital assets are defined broadly to include online accounts, digital content, and any other digital property. The law provides a hierarchy for controlling these assets. First, a user can provide instructions in an “online tool” provided by a custodian, or in a will, trust, or other testamentary document, or a power of attorney. If no such instructions exist, the law dictates that the user’s digital assets pass to the beneficiaries designated in the user’s will or trust, or if none, to the user’s heirs under intestacy laws. Crucially, the custodian of a digital asset cannot grant access to a digital asset to a person not otherwise entitled to access under the law, but they can provide the personal representative or other authorized person with access to the digital asset. In this scenario, while Ms. Anya’s will designates her son, Dimitri, as the sole beneficiary of her estate, it does not contain any specific instructions regarding her digital assets. Her digital assets are held by various custodians. The Michigan Digital Assets Law prioritizes specific instructions within an online tool or a will/trust over general beneficiary designations. Since Anya’s will lacks specific instructions for her digital assets and there is no mention of an online tool, the law’s default provisions apply. The law states that digital assets pass to the beneficiaries of the estate as specified in the will or trust. Therefore, Dimitri, as the sole beneficiary of Anya’s estate, is entitled to receive her digital assets, subject to the terms of the will and the Michigan Digital Assets Law. The custodian’s role is to facilitate access for the rightful beneficiary or personal representative, not to determine entitlement.

The Michigan Digital Asset Law, specifically MCL 700.7951 et seq., governs the rights and responsibilities of individuals and fiduciaries concerning digital assets upon a person’s death or incapacitation. This law establishes a framework for accessing and controlling digital assets based on the user’s intent, as expressed through an online tool or a will. In this scenario, Elias explicitly granted his daughter, Anya, access to his digital assets through his account provider’s designated online tool. This method of designation is a primary mechanism recognized by the Michigan Digital Asset Law for controlling digital asset disposition. The law prioritizes these direct designations over conflicting provisions in a will or trust, unless the will or trust specifically revokes or overrides the online tool designation. Since Elias used the online tool, and his will does not explicitly revoke this designation, Anya’s right to access the assets is established through the legally recognized method of a user-defined online tool. The law emphasizes respecting the user’s intent, and the online tool is a direct manifestation of that intent. Therefore, Anya has the legal right to access Elias’s digital assets as designated.

The Michigan Identity Theft Protection Act, MCL 445.71, specifically addresses the obligations of entities that own or license computerized data that includes a resident’s personal identifying information. When a breach of that data occurs, the Act mandates notification to affected residents. The Act defines “personal identifying information” broadly to include names, social security numbers, driver’s license numbers, and financial account numbers, among other data points. It also defines “breach of the security of the system” as unauthorized acquisition of computerized data that compromises the security, confidentiality, or integrity of personal identifying information. The notification requirement is triggered by such a breach. The Act does not differentiate notification requirements based on the type of digital asset held, but rather on whether the compromised data constitutes personal identifying information of Michigan residents. Therefore, the possession of cryptocurrency, which is a digital asset, would necessitate compliance with the Michigan Identity Theft Protection Act if the associated data includes personal identifying information of Michigan residents and that data is compromised. The Act’s focus is on the protection of personal information, regardless of whether it is stored in traditional databases or associated with digital assets. The timeline for notification, which is generally without unreasonable delay and no later than 45 days after discovery of the breach, is a key procedural aspect. The scope of the notification must include a description of the incident, the types of information involved, and steps residents can take to protect themselves.

The Michigan Digital Asset Law, specifically MCL 700.7101 et seq., provides a framework for the control and disposition of digital assets upon a person’s death. The law distinguishes between “digital assets” and “digital services.” A digital asset is an electronic record in which an individual has a right or interest. A digital service is a service provided to an individual by a provider of an online communication service, digital storage service, or the like. The law grants a fiduciary, such as a personal representative or trustee, the authority to access and control the digital assets of a decedent or incapacitated person. However, this authority is generally limited to assets that the user has the right to access and control. Access to a digital service, which is typically a platform or account provided by a third party, is governed by the terms of service of that provider. The Michigan law does not grant a fiduciary automatic access to a digital service itself, but rather to the digital assets contained within or associated with that service. Therefore, while the fiduciary can manage digital assets like cryptocurrency or digital photographs, their ability to access the underlying service account is contingent on the provider’s terms and conditions or specific legal authorization, such as a court order or a valid power of attorney that explicitly addresses digital services. The law aims to balance the decedent’s intent with the privacy interests of digital service providers and the security of their platforms.

The Michigan Identity Theft Protection Act, MCL 445.2522, outlines specific requirements for businesses that own or license, and maintain, computerized data that includes personal identifying information. When a breach of that data occurs, the entity must provide notification to affected individuals, the Attorney General, and, in certain circumstances, consumer reporting agencies. The timing of this notification is critical. The Act mandates that notification must be made “without unreasonable delay” and no later than 45 days after the discovery of the breach, unless a longer period is required by federal law or a specific exception applies. This 45-day period is a key statutory deadline for businesses operating in Michigan. Understanding this timeframe is crucial for compliance and mitigating potential liabilities associated with data breaches. The Act focuses on protecting Michigan residents’ personal information and ensures that businesses take prompt action to inform individuals when their data may have been compromised, thereby enabling them to take protective measures against identity theft. The specific trigger for the notification requirement is the discovery of a breach of the security of the system.

The Michigan Digital Asset Law, specifically MCL 700.7101 et seq., governs the rights and responsibilities concerning digital assets upon a person’s death or incapacitation. When an individual’s will or other record does not specify a designated recipient for their digital assets, the law outlines a hierarchical approach for granting access. The primary consideration is whether the deceased user’s terms of service agreement with the digital asset custodian (e.g., a social media platform or cloud storage provider) permits access by a fiduciary or a designated recipient. If the terms of service are silent or do not prohibit it, and the user has not expressed a contrary intent in a record, then a fiduciary, such as an executor or administrator of the estate, can request access to the digital asset. This access is typically granted for the purpose of administering the estate. The law prioritizes the user’s expressed intent, but in the absence of such clear direction, it balances the privacy interests of the user with the need for estate administration. It’s important to note that this access is not absolute and may be subject to limitations imposed by the custodian’s terms of service or other applicable laws. The law aims to provide a framework for managing digital assets that often represent significant personal or financial value, bridging the gap between traditional estate law and the evolving digital landscape. The question asks for the legal basis of access when no specific provision is made in the user’s will or other records.

The Michigan Digital Assets Law, specifically MCL 700.1212, addresses the rights of a personal representative to access and control a deceased individual’s digital assets. This statute defines digital assets broadly to include electronic communications, digital accounts, and digital property. The core principle is that the personal representative, upon presenting proof of authority, can step into the shoes of the deceased regarding their digital assets, subject to certain limitations and the terms of service of the provider. For instance, while a personal representative can access the content of electronic communications, they cannot compel a provider to disclose the content of communications of other users without proper legal authorization. The law aims to balance the deceased’s right to privacy and the need for efficient estate administration. It’s crucial to understand that the personal representative’s authority is not absolute and is often mediated by the terms of service agreements governing the digital asset provider, which may impose additional restrictions or procedures. The law’s intent is to provide a clear framework for managing digital assets within the broader context of estate planning and administration in Michigan, aligning with national trends in digital estate law.

The Michigan Digital Asset Law, specifically MCL 700.2601 et seq., governs the rights of a fiduciary to access a decedent’s digital assets. When a person dies, their digital assets, such as online accounts, digital photos, and cryptocurrency holdings, become part of their estate. The law establishes a framework for how fiduciaries, like personal representatives of an estate, can gain lawful access to these assets. A key provision in the Michigan law, similar to many other states adopting the Revised Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (RUFADAA), is that a fiduciary generally has the same power over the digital assets of the decedent as the decedent had during their lifetime, subject to certain limitations. These limitations often include the terms of service of the online service provider and the intent of the user. The law prioritizes the user’s explicit instructions, such as a digital will or a separate document directing the handling of digital assets. In the absence of explicit instructions, the law provides a default hierarchy of access. This hierarchy typically allows the fiduciary to access digital assets unless the service provider has a specific policy prohibiting such access, or the user has explicitly opted out of fiduciary access through a specific mechanism provided by the service provider. The law aims to balance the privacy interests of the user with the need for fiduciaries to manage and distribute digital assets as part of the estate administration process. Therefore, the general rule is that a fiduciary can access digital assets, but this access is not absolute and is subject to the user’s expressed wishes and the terms of service. The Michigan statute does not require the fiduciary to obtain a court order to access digital assets if the user has not prohibited it and the service provider permits it, but it does require the fiduciary to provide proof of their authority. The question asks about the general rule concerning a fiduciary’s access to digital assets under Michigan law. The general rule is that a fiduciary can access these assets, provided the user has not prohibited it and the service provider’s terms of service allow it.

The Michigan Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (MUFADAA), codified in MCL § 710.101 et seq., governs how fiduciaries can access a deceased or incapacitated person’s digital assets. The Act establishes a hierarchy of control. Generally, a fiduciary’s right to access digital assets is determined by the terms of service of the online provider and any explicit instructions from the user. However, if the user has not provided explicit instructions, the Act outlines default rules. Under MCL § 710.107, a fiduciary’s authority to access a digital asset is limited to the extent necessary to administer the estate or trust. For digital assets that are not content but rather accounts or services, such as email accounts or social media profiles, the Act prioritizes the user’s online tool, if available, for granting access. If no online tool is provided by the custodian, or if the user has not used it, then the fiduciary may be granted access based on the terms of service and the fiduciary’s legal authority. The Act specifically distinguishes between “content” of digital assets and the “digital asset” itself, which can include accounts and services. Access to content is more restricted than access to the account itself. In this scenario, the deceased user established a digital estate plan via the online platform of the digital asset custodian, explicitly granting their son, as personal representative, access to their cloud storage account and its contents. This explicit instruction, made through the custodian’s designated online tool, overrides general default provisions and the terms of service that might otherwise restrict access to content. Therefore, the son, acting as personal representative, has the authority to access the cloud storage account and its contents as directed by the deceased user’s digital estate plan.

The Michigan Digital Assets Law, specifically MCL 700.2501 et seq., governs the rights and responsibilities concerning digital assets upon a person’s death or incapacity. When a user of an online service has a “terms of service” agreement that dictates the disposition of their digital assets, this agreement generally supersedes the default provisions of the Michigan statute unless the terms are unconscionable or violate public policy. The law allows for a user to grant specific instructions regarding their digital assets through an “online tool” or within their will. However, if the service provider’s terms of service explicitly state that digital assets are non-transferable and terminate upon the user’s death, this contractual provision will typically be honored by Michigan courts. This is because the terms of service represent a binding agreement between the user and the service provider. The law also provides a hierarchy for determining control, prioritizing a valid will or a court order over other forms of instruction. However, the presence of a clear and enforceable terms of service agreement that addresses digital asset disposition creates a specific contractual framework that Michigan law respects, even if it deviates from the broader statutory default. The statute aims to provide flexibility while also respecting the contractual relationships users enter into with online service providers.

The Michigan Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (MUFADAA), codified in Michigan Compiled Laws Chapter 710, specifically addresses how fiduciaries, such as personal representatives or trustees, can access and manage a deceased or incapacitated person’s digital assets. Section 710.107 of the Michigan Act outlines the types of digital assets that a fiduciary may control. This section enumerates categories like digital communications, digital data, and online services. The core principle is that a fiduciary’s authority extends to digital assets that the user has a right to possess or control. However, the Act also specifies limitations. For instance, a fiduciary cannot access digital assets that are encrypted with a key the user has not provided or that are subject to terms of service prohibiting such access by a fiduciary. The Act prioritizes the user’s intent, as expressed in their digital asset control document or their online account settings. When a user has not provided explicit instructions, the Act provides a hierarchy of access, often prioritizing a personal representative appointed by a court. The question hinges on understanding the scope of a fiduciary’s authority under Michigan law, particularly concerning the types of digital assets they can manage and the conditions that might limit this access. The scenario presents a fiduciary attempting to access cloud-stored personal photographs and financial account statements. Both of these fall under the general categories of digital assets a fiduciary can typically access under MUFADAA, provided the user had the right to possess or control them and there are no overriding terms of service or encryption barriers. Therefore, the fiduciary’s authority would extend to these assets, subject to the Act’s general limitations.

The Michigan Trust Code, specifically MCL 700.7101 et seq., governs the creation and administration of trusts in the state. When considering digital assets, the Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (UFADAA), as adopted and modified in Michigan under MCL 700.7971 et seq., provides the framework for how a fiduciary, such as a trustee, can access and control a user’s digital assets. This act distinguishes between different types of digital assets and the methods by which access can be granted. A “digital asset” is defined broadly to include electronic records that a person owns or controls. A “custodian” is an entity that holds a digital asset on behalf of a user. The UFADAA prioritizes a user’s intent, expressed through an online tool provided by the custodian or in a will, trust, or power of attorney. In the absence of such specific instructions, the act outlines a hierarchy of access, generally favoring the personal representative of an estate or a trustee. However, the critical element for a trustee’s access is the explicit grant of authority within the trust document itself. If the trust document clearly grants the trustee the power to manage, control, and distribute digital assets, and this grant is not superseded by specific instructions within a digital asset custodian’s terms of service or a separate digital estate plan, then the trustee possesses the authority. The Michigan UFADAA generally allows a trustee to access digital assets of the settlor if the trust instrument grants the trustee authority over digital assets. This authority is paramount unless the user has explicitly opted out through a specific tool provided by the custodian or by other means permitted by law that directly override the trust’s instructions. Therefore, the core of a trustee’s ability to access digital assets hinges on the express authorization within the trust instrument, subject to the user’s direct and overriding instructions to the custodian.

The Michigan Digital Asset Law, specifically MCL 700.7101 et seq. (Revised Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act), governs how a person’s digital assets are handled after their death or incapacitation. A digital asset is defined as an electronic record that the interest in which is a digital asset. This includes online accounts, digital content, and digital representations of assets. The law prioritizes the user’s intent as expressed in a digital asset control document. Such a document, if validly executed, grants a fiduciary (like an executor or agent) specific authority over digital assets. Without a control document, a fiduciary’s access is more limited, often requiring a court order or the consent of the online custodian. The law distinguishes between granting access to the content of digital assets and granting control over the digital asset itself. Control documents can be specific to digital assets or part of a broader estate planning document like a will or trust, provided they meet the statutory requirements for creation and execution. The primary goal is to balance the decedent’s privacy with the fiduciary’s need to administer the estate effectively. The Michigan law aligns with the broader principles of the Revised Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (RUFADAA), aiming to provide clear guidelines for a rapidly evolving area of law. The distinction between content access and control is crucial for understanding the scope of a fiduciary’s powers under this act.

The Michigan Digital Assets Law, specifically the Revised Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (RUFADAA) as adopted in Michigan, outlines the rights of a fiduciary concerning a decedent’s digital assets. Under MCL 700.1201 et seq., a fiduciary, such as an executor or trustee, generally has the right to access, manage, and control the digital assets of the principal or decedent. This access is contingent upon the terms of the governing instrument (like a will or trust) or a separate directive from the user. The law differentiates between content and the account itself. While a fiduciary can generally access the account, access to specific digital content might be restricted if the user has not explicitly granted permission in a legally recognized manner. For instance, terms of service of a digital asset custodian might impose limitations. However, the statute provides a framework to override such restrictions unless the custodian has a valid legal basis to deny access. The core principle is that a fiduciary steps into the shoes of the principal for managing digital assets, similar to tangible property, but with specific considerations for privacy and terms of service. The question hinges on understanding the scope of a fiduciary’s authority over digital assets in Michigan, particularly concerning the ability to manage an online account.

The Michigan Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (MUFADAA), specifically MCL 710.1101 et seq., governs how fiduciaries can access a digital asset owner’s digital assets after their death or incapacitation. A key aspect of this act is the distinction between content and communication. Digital assets are broadly defined to include electronic records, data, and other information. The act establishes a hierarchy of control, prioritizing the user’s explicit instructions in a digital asset record, followed by a power of attorney or will that specifically grants authority over digital assets, and then by the terms of service of the digital asset custodian. Crucially, the MUFADAA differentiates between the right to access the *content* of digital assets and the right to *communicate* through those assets. While a fiduciary can generally access content, the act places limitations on the ability to send communications or impersonate the user, especially if the user’s intent was to maintain privacy or control over outgoing messages. Section 710.1109 of the Michigan Compiled Laws outlines these limitations, stating that a fiduciary may not unilaterally create a new digital asset or alter the digital assets of the user, nor can they send a communication that the user did not create or send. This is to prevent unauthorized actions that could misrepresent the deceased or incapacitated individual. Therefore, a fiduciary’s ability to access the entirety of a digital asset, including the ability to send communications on behalf of the user, is subject to the user’s explicit instructions and the limitations imposed by the statute to prevent misuse or misrepresentation. The scenario presented involves a fiduciary attempting to send a pre-written message from the deceased’s account. This action directly falls under the prohibition of sending communications that the user did not initiate or intend to send, as outlined in the MUFADAA’s provisions on fiduciary conduct.

The Michigan Identity Theft Protection Act (ITPA), specifically MCL 445.61 et seq., governs the disclosure of a breach of the security of the system. The Act defines “personal information” broadly to include a name in combination with a social security number, driver’s license number, or state identification card number, or a financial account number. When a breach of unencrypted and unredacted personal information occurs, a notification must be made. The Act specifies that notification must be made without unreasonable delay, and no later than 45 days after the discovery of the breach. The notification must be provided to the consumer, and in certain circumstances, to consumer reporting agencies and the Michigan Attorney General. The disclosure requirements are triggered by a compromise of certain types of data that could lead to identity theft. In this scenario, the compromise of customer names alongside their unique account numbers, which are considered personal information under the ITPA, necessitates notification. The Act does not mandate a specific calculation of risk or probability of harm for notification; rather, the compromise of the defined personal information itself triggers the obligation. Therefore, the discovery of the breach of customer names and account numbers necessitates notification under the Michigan Identity Theft Protection Act.

The Michigan Digital Assets Law, specifically MCL 700.7971, addresses the rights of a fiduciary to access a digital asset of a deceased user. The law outlines a process where a fiduciary, such as an executor or administrator, can request access to a digital asset from a digital asset custodian. This access is typically granted if the user has not provided specific instructions regarding their digital assets in their will or a separate writing. The law distinguishes between access to the content of electronic communications and access to other digital assets. For electronic communications, the fiduciary generally needs a court order or the user’s explicit consent. However, for other digital assets, the fiduciary can often gain access by providing a copy of the user’s death certificate and a copy of their legal authority to act as fiduciary. The statute aims to balance the deceased’s privacy with the fiduciary’s need to manage the estate. It’s important to note that the law also allows digital asset custodians to refuse access if they have a reasonable belief that granting access would violate the law or a valid court order. The core principle is that the fiduciary steps into the shoes of the deceased regarding their digital assets, subject to the terms of service of the custodian and the specific provisions of the Michigan law. The law does not mandate that custodians must grant access without any verification, but rather provides a framework for when such access is permissible.

The Michigan Digital Asset Law, specifically MCL §700.1201 et seq., governs how digital assets are handled upon a person’s death or incapacitation. A custodian of a digital asset is defined as a person that, as a business, has possession or control of a digital asset. When a user has provided explicit consent to the disclosure of their digital assets to a third party through a digital asset control document, the custodian must comply with that document. The law distinguishes between a “digital asset” and a “digital account.” A digital asset is an electronic record that the user has a right of ownership in. A digital account is a record that is used to store, send, receive, or manage digital assets. The scenario describes an online platform that holds cryptocurrency, which is a digital asset. The platform itself is the custodian. The user’s will explicitly names their sibling as the beneficiary of their digital assets and grants the sibling the authority to manage them. This provision within the will functions as a digital asset control document. Therefore, the custodian (the online platform) is obligated to provide the sibling with access to the cryptocurrency, subject to the terms of the user agreement and any applicable federal laws, but primarily guided by the explicit consent provided in the will. The Michigan law prioritizes the user’s intent as expressed in a valid control document.