A setting inside a Google or Facebook account can override the will. Utah’s Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act, at Title 75A, Chapter 6, puts an online tool at the top of the hierarchy: if the platform lets the user change or delete the direction at any time, that direction beats a contrary instruction in a will, trust, or power of attorney. Handling digital assets in probate therefore starts in the account settings, not in the estate plan, and the split between the content of messages and everything else decides how hard the rest will be.

Last updated: September 2026

Key Takeaways

The Statute That Governs Digital Assets in Probate

Digital assets in probate are governed by one chapter. Utah adopted the Revised Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act, now codified at Title 75A, Chapter 6, and renumbered by Chapter 364 of the 2024 General Session.

Section 75A-6-103 sets its reach broadly. The chapter applies to a fiduciary or agent acting under a will or power of attorney executed before, on, or after May 9, 2017; to a personal representative acting for a decedent who died before, on, or after that date; to a conservatorship or guardianship commenced before, on, or after it; and to a trustee acting under a trust created before, on, or after it. Subsection (2) applies it to a custodian if the user resides or resided in Utah at death. Subsection (3) carves out employer digital assets used by an employee in the ordinary course of the employer’s business.

Three terms carry the chapter. A custodian is the platform. A user is the account holder. A designated recipient is a person the user named through the platform’s own tool rather than through an estate planning document.

The Three-Level Priority for Digital Assets in Probate

This ordering is what surprises families handling digital assets in probate, and frequently the drafting attorney too.

A user may use an online tool to direct the custodian to disclose or not to disclose to a designated recipient some or all of the user’s digital assets, including the content of electronic communications. If the online tool allows the user to modify or delete a direction at all times, a direction regarding disclosure using an online tool overrides a contrary direction by the user in a will, trust, power of attorney, or other record.

Utah Code Section 75A-6-104(1)

Read in order:

1. The online tool wins, if it can be modified or deleted at any time. A legacy contact, an inactive account manager, or a similar in-platform setting outranks the estate plan.
2. Absent an online tool, Section 75A-6-104(2) lets the user allow or prohibit disclosure “in a will, trust, power of attorney, or other record.” This is where drafting matters.
3. Terms of service come last, but only so far. Section 75A-6-104(3) provides that a user’s direction overrides a contrary provision in a terms of service agreement “that does not require the user to act affirmatively and distinctly from the user’s assent to the terms of service.” A buried clause loses; a separately affirmed one does not.

Section 75A-6-105 sets the ceiling. The chapter does not change a custodian’s or user’s rights under a terms of service agreement, and Subsection (2) is explicit: it “does not give a fiduciary or designated recipient any new or expanded rights other than those held by the user.” Where the user never had a transferable right, neither does the estate.

Content Versus Catalogue

The single most useful distinction in handling digital assets in probate is between the content of electronic communications and everything else. Utah, following federal privacy law, treats them very differently.

For digital assets in probate, “catalogue” means the metadata: who the user communicated with and when, plus the accounts and assets themselves. What it does not include is the text of the messages.

The court finding available under Section 75A-6-107(5)(c) is the escape hatch when a decedent left no direction: a finding that the user had a specific identifiable account, that disclosure would not violate 18 U.S.C. Section 2701 et seq. or 47 U.S.C. Section 222 or other applicable law, that the user consented unless an online tool was used, or that disclosure is reasonably necessary for administration of the estate.

The 60-Day Clock on Digital Assets in Probate

A platform cannot simply ignore a request about digital assets in probate.

Section 75A-6-116(1): “Not later than 60 days after receipt of the information required under Sections 75A-6-107 through 75A-6-115, a custodian shall comply with a request … to disclose digital assets or terminate an account. If the custodian fails to comply, the fiduciary or designated recipient may apply to the court for an order directing compliance.” Subsection (2) requires that order to contain a finding that compliance does not violate 18 U.S.C. Section 2702.

Three provisions cut against the fiduciary. Subsection (3) lets the custodian notify the user that a request was made. Subsection (4) lets the custodian deny a request if it is aware of any lawful access to the account after receiving the request, which is why sharing a password with a relative can defeat a fiduciary’s own request. Subsection (6) gives the custodian and its officers, employees, and agents immunity for acts or omissions done in good faith in compliance with the chapter.

Section 75A-6-106 governs how disclosure happens, and the choice is not the fiduciary’s. The custodian may, at the custodian’s sole discretion, grant full account access, grant partial access sufficient to perform the fiduciary’s tasks, or provide a copy in a record of any digital asset the user could have accessed. Subsection (2) permits a reasonable administrative charge. Subsection (3) provides that the custodian need not disclose an asset the user deleted. Subsection (4) allows a custodian facing an undue segregation burden to seek a court order limiting disclosure by date, ordering everything disclosed, ordering nothing disclosed, or requiring production to the court for in camera review.

What the Fiduciary Actually Gets

Section 75A-6-115 is the operating manual for anyone handling digital assets in probate, and it grants less than most executors expect.

• The same duties apply. Subsection (1) imposes the duties of care, loyalty, and confidentiality that apply to managing tangible property.
• Authority has four limits. Subsection (2): subject to the terms of service except as Section 75A-6-104 provides, subject to other law including copyright, limited by the scope of the fiduciary’s duties, and it “may not be used to impersonate the user.”
• Assets outside a platform are simply available. Subsection (3) gives a fiduciary the right to access any digital asset in which the decedent, protected person, principal, or settlor had a right or interest “that is not held by a custodian or subject to a terms of service agreement.” Local files, drives, and self-custodied assets are not gated by this chapter.
• No hacking exposure. Subsections (4) and (5) make a fiduciary acting within their duties an authorized user for purposes of computer fraud and unauthorized computer access laws, including for digital assets stored in tangible personal property the fiduciary controls.
• Closing accounts. Subsection (7) lets a fiduciary request termination in writing, with a certified death certificate if the user is deceased, a certified copy of the letters, small estate affidavit, court order, power of attorney, or trust, and, if requested, an account identifier or a court finding.

Guardians and Conservators Get Less

Section 75A-6-114 handles a living protected person, and it is deliberately narrower than the rules for a decedent’s estate.

Subsection (1) provides that “after an opportunity for a hearing under Chapter 5, Protection of Persons Under Disability and Their Property, the court may grant a conservator or guardian access to the digital assets of a protected person.” Access is a court decision, not a consequence of appointment.

For digital assets in probate involving a living ward, Subsection (2) limits what a custodian must disclose to the catalogue of electronic communications and digital assets “other than the content of electronic communications,” on a written request plus a certified copy of the court order granting authority over digital assets and, if requested, an account identifier or evidence linking the account. There is no route in this section to the content of a living protected person’s messages.

Subsection (3) adds one useful power: a guardian or conservator with general authority over the protected person’s assets may ask a custodian to suspend or terminate an account for good cause, accompanied by a certified copy of the order. That is the provision to use when a person with diminished capacity is being targeted through an account.

What to Do Now

Digital assets in probate are almost entirely a planning problem, and four steps remove most of it.

1. Set the online tools. Because Section 75A-6-104(1) puts them first, an unset legacy contact is the most common failure. Setting them takes minutes and outranks every document.
2. Grant consent in the documents. Section 75A-6-104(2) allows a will, trust, power of attorney, or other record to allow disclosure, and Section 75A-6-107(4) requires that document to prove consent to the content of communications. A plan silent on this leaves the estate arguing for a court finding.
3. Inventory what is not held by a custodian. Section 75A-6-115(3) gives a fiduciary direct access to assets outside a platform. A list of devices and where they are is worth more than a list of passwords, and sharing passwords can trigger the Section 75A-6-116(4) denial.
4. Handle valuable assets separately. Accounts with real economic value belong in the estate plan by name, and where the asset is a licensed one, note that Section 75A-6-105(2) gives a fiduciary no rights the user did not have.

Utah also now recognizes electronic wills, at Title 75, Chapter 2, Part 14, with execution governed by Section 75-2-1405(1) and definitions at Section 75-2-1402 covering electronic presence and electronic signature.

The planning side is covered in the Utah digital asset estate planning guide, the administration process in the Utah probate guide, the executor’s duties in the role of an executor, out-of-state assets in ancillary probate, and the wider plan in the Utah estate planning guide.

Written by Jeremy Eveland, an estate planning and probate attorney licensed in Utah, Nevada, California, and Texas. He builds estate plans for Utah families from offices in Lindon and West Jordan.

This article is general information about Utah law, not legal advice for your situation. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Statutory provisions are current as of the date above.