Most of my estate-planning clients assume that a properly executed will reaches everything they own, email included. Minnesota law says otherwise, and it says so in a statute almost nobody has read: chapter 521A, the Revised Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act, enacted in 2016. Under that chapter, a checkbox you clicked inside a Google or Facebook account setting legally overrides the will your lawyer drafted, and if you never consented to anything at all, your personal representative can obtain a list of who you emailed and when — but not one word of what the messages said.
The stakes are not theoretical. Photographs live in cloud accounts. Financial statements arrive only by email. A small business’s customer records, invoices, and domain registrations sit behind logins. When the account holder dies, every one of those records has a custodian — the company that stores it — and the custodian answers to chapter 521A, not to your family’s sense of what is reasonable.
Three documents can speak. The statute ranks them.
Minn. Stat. § 521A.04 sets a strict priority among the instruments that can direct what happens to your digital assets, and the order is the reverse of what most people expect.
First priority: the online tool. An “online tool” is the custodian’s own mechanism — a setting, separate from the general terms of service, where the user directs what happens to the account at death. Section 521A.04(a) provides that 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.
Read that again. The inactive-account setting you configured in ten minutes, years ago, and forgot about, beats the will you signed last month. I have reviewed estate plans built with real care whose digital-asset provisions were dead on arrival because an old account setting pointed somewhere else. The planning consequence is simple: the online tools have to be inventoried and aligned with the plan, or they will quietly contradict it.
Second priority: the will, trust, or power of attorney. If no online tool direction exists — or the custodian never offered one — § 521A.04(b) lets the user “allow or prohibit in a will, trust, power of attorney, or other record” the disclosure of some or all digital assets, including the content of electronic communications.
Last place: the terms of service. Section 521A.04(c) subordinates the custodian’s boilerplate to both of the above:
A user’s direction under paragraph (a) or (b) 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.
So the click-through “your account is non-transferable and dies with you” clause loses to a properly drafted will. But note the condition doing quiet work in each rung: the online tool only wins if it is freely modifiable, and the user’s direction only beats a terms-of-service provision the user did not affirmatively and distinctly agree to. Chapter 521A rewards deliberate directions and discounts boilerplate — in both directions.
What does your executor actually get?
The chapter splits every account into two very different things, and the split drives everything else.
The content of an electronic communication — defined in § 521A.02, subd. 7 — is the substance of the message itself: the body of the email, the text of the direct message. The catalog of electronic communications — § 521A.02, subd. 5 — is:
information that identifies each person with which a user has had an electronic communication, the time and date of the communication, and the electronic address of the person.
Envelope information, not letters. Under § 521A.08, a personal representative gets the catalog, plus digital assets other than content, more or less as of right: unless the user prohibited disclosure or a court directs otherwise, the custodian must disclose upon receipt of a written request, a certified death certificate, and the letters of appointment — or, notably, an Affidavit of Collection of Personal Property under § 524.3-1201, which means even a small-estate affidavit can unlock the catalog without a probate.
Content is a different matter. Under § 521A.07, the custodian discloses the substance of communications only “[i]f a deceased user consented or a court directs disclosure.” No consent in an online tool, will, trust, power of attorney, or other record means no content — unless the estate goes to court and obtains findings, including that disclosure “is reasonably necessary for administration of the estate.” That is an expensive substitute for one sentence of drafting.
The reason for the asymmetry is federal. The Stored Communications Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2702(a), generally prohibits a provider of electronic communication services to the public from knowingly divulging the contents of stored communications. The exception estate lawyers care about is § 2702(b)(3): disclosure “with the lawful consent of the originator or an addressee or intended recipient of such communication, or the subscriber in the case of remote computing service.” Chapter 521A is engineered to manufacture that lawful consent while the user is alive to give it — and § 521A.16(b) closes the loop by requiring that any court order compelling disclosure contain a finding that compliance does not violate § 2702. A Minnesota statute cannot repeal a federal one; it can only build the consent record that makes the federal prohibition inapplicable.
Agents, trustees, and conservators do not stand equally
The chapter runs the same content-versus-catalog split through every fiduciary office, with different results for each.
An agent under a power of attorney reaches content only “[t]o the extent a power of attorney expressly grants an agent authority over the content of electronic communications” — § 521A.09. A general grant of authority gets the agent the catalog and other digital assets under § 521A.10, but not the substance of a single message. Most powers of attorney I see, including many drafted by lawyers, contain no express content grant. Those instruments will not open the principal’s email when the principal is incapacitated and the family needs to find the insurance correspondence. The statutory short-form power of attorney does not solve this by itself; the express language has to be added.
A trustee who is the original user of an account gets everything in it, content included — § 521A.11. A successor trustee who is not the original user needs the trust instrument (or a certification of trust under § 501C.1013) to include consent to disclosure of content — § 521A.12; without it, the successor gets the catalog under § 521A.13. Anyone maintaining a revocable trust should treat digital-asset consent language as standard equipment.
A conservator is last in line. Under § 521A.14, a conservator reaches a protected person’s digital assets only after an opportunity for a hearing, and even then paragraph (b) extends only to the catalog and non-content assets. Read the chapter end to end and you will find no section entitling a conservator to content at all. That is a deliberate structural choice — the protected person is alive, and the legislature left the substance of a living person’s correspondence out of the conservator’s reach.
The 60-day clock — and the custodian’s outs
Once a fiduciary delivers the required paperwork, § 521A.16(a) starts a real deadline:
Not later than 60 days after receipt of the information required under sections 521A.07 to 521A.15, a custodian shall comply with a request under this chapter from a fiduciary or designated recipient to disclose digital assets or terminate an account.
If the custodian blows the deadline, the remedy is an application to the court for an order directing compliance. In practice the statute’s paperwork lists are the whole game: custodians process these requests through forms and escalation queues, and a request that arrives complete — death certificate, letters, the consent instrument, the account identifiers § 521A.07(5) lets them demand — starts the clock; a request that arrives incomplete starts nothing.
The custodian keeps meaningful discretion even when it must comply. Under § 521A.06 it chooses the format — full access, partial access, or a copy of the assets — and may charge a reasonable administrative fee. Two limits in that section deserve their own sentences. Section 521A.06(c): “A custodian need not disclose under this chapter a digital asset deleted by a user.” What the user erased stays erased, no matter who asks. And § 521A.06(d) lets a custodian resist a partial-disclosure request that would impose an undue burden of segregation, with the dispute going to court. Custodians acting in good faith under the chapter are immune from liability — § 521A.16(f) — which is precisely why they follow the statute’s checklists to the letter and not one step past them.
Two boundary rules round out the picture. The chapter does not apply to “a digital asset of an employer used by an employee in the ordinary course of the employer’s business” — § 521A.03(c) — so the work account belongs to this analysis not at all. And a fiduciary who gets in holds the access as a fiduciary: § 521A.15(a) applies the duties of care, loyalty, and confidentiality to digital assets, and § 521A.15(b)(4) provides that the authority “may not be used to impersonate the user.” Logging into the decedent’s account and sending messages as the decedent is off the table, whatever the practical temptation. That fiduciary overlay carries the same personal exposure as any other administration decision — see personal representative liability.
The two sentences to add today
The entire content-versus-catalog problem dissolves with express consent, and the consent is short. In a will:
“I authorize my personal representative to access, control, and receive disclosure of all of my digital assets, including the content of my electronic communications, under Minnesota Statutes chapter 521A and any corresponding law.”
In a power of attorney:
“My attorney-in-fact is expressly granted authority over my digital assets, including authority to receive disclosure of the content of my electronic communications under Minnesota Statutes section 521A.09.”
Adapt the language to the instrument, but the operative elements are fixed by the statute: express, in the instrument, and reaching “content of electronic communications” by name, because that is the phrase §§ 521A.07 and 521A.09 condition disclosure on. Then finish the job the statute actually ranks first — open each major account’s legacy or inactive-account setting and point it at the same people your documents name. A plan whose online tools, will, and power of attorney all say the same thing has no priority problem, because every rung of § 521A.04 gives the same answer. It matters little whether the estate proceeds through informal or formal probate; the custodian’s checklist is the same either way.
Madgett Law, LLC
We build Minnesota estate plans that account for digital assets from the start — express chapter 521A consent in wills, powers of attorney, and trust instruments, and an online-tool inventory so the statute’s first priority works for the plan instead of against it. We also represent personal representatives and trustees stuck on the other end: assembling the § 521A.07 and § 521A.08 paperwork, and moving for compliance orders when a custodian sits past the 60-day deadline. Call 612-470-6529 or send us a message.
Sources: Minn. Stat. § 521A.01 (short title; Revised Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act; enacted 2016 c 135 art 2). Minn. Stat. § 521A.02 — subd. 5 (definition of “catalog of electronic communications,” quoted), subd. 7 (definition of “content of an electronic communication”), subd. 9 (custodian), subd. 17 (online tool as a service distinct from the terms-of-service agreement). Minn. Stat. § 521A.03 — para. (a) (fiduciaries covered), para. (c) (employer digital assets excluded, quoted). Minn. Stat. § 521A.04 — para. (a) (online-tool direction overrides will, trust, power of attorney, or other record if the tool allows modification or deletion at all times; quoted), para. (b) (user may allow or prohibit disclosure in a will, trust, power of attorney, or other record), para. (c) (user direction overrides a contrary terms-of-service provision absent an affirmative and distinct act; quoted). Minn. Stat. § 521A.06 — para. (a) (custodian’s choice of full access, partial access, or a copy), para. (b) (reasonable administrative charge), para. (c) (no duty to disclose an asset deleted by the user, quoted), para. (d) (undue-burden objection and court options). Minn. Stat. § 521A.07 (disclosure of content of a deceased user’s electronic communications only on the user’s consent or court direction; required documentation including letters, court order, or a § 524.3-1201 Affidavit of Collection; court findings including reasonable necessity for administration). Minn. Stat. § 521A.08 (disclosure of the catalog and non-content assets to the personal representative unless the user prohibited disclosure or the court directs otherwise; required documentation). Minn. Stat. § 521A.09 (agent’s access to content only to the extent the power of attorney expressly grants authority over content of electronic communications). Minn. Stat. § 521A.10 (agent’s access to catalog and non-content assets under specific or general authority). Minn. Stat. §§ 521A.11–.13 (trustee as original user receives all assets including content; successor trustee’s content access requires consent in the trust instrument or a § 501C.1013 certification; catalog and non-content assets otherwise). Minn. Stat. § 521A.14 — paras. (a)–(b) (conservator access after opportunity for hearing; disclosure limited to the catalog and non-content assets). Minn. Stat. § 521A.15 — para. (a) (duties of care, loyalty, and confidentiality apply to digital assets), para. (b)(4) (authority may not be used to impersonate the user, quoted). Minn. Stat. § 521A.16 — para. (a) (60-day custodian compliance deadline, quoted; application to the court on noncompliance), para. (b) (compliance order must find no violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2702), para. (f) (good-faith custodian immunity). 18 U.S.C. § 2702 — subsec. (a) (prohibition on a public provider’s knowing divulgence of contents of stored communications), subsec. (b)(3) (lawful-consent exception, quoted); retrieved from uscode.house.gov. Minnesota statutory text retrieved from the Minnesota Office of the Revisor of Statutes (2025 edition); no pending-amendment banner appeared on any chapter 521A section cited. Bold emphasis within quoted statutory text is added. The sample will and power-of-attorney clauses are the author’s drafting illustrations, not statutory text. This article is general legal information about Minnesota law, not legal advice, and reading it does not create an attorney–client relationship. Whether a particular custodian must disclose a particular account depends on the instruments, the directions on file, and federal law. No outcome is promised or implied.