Regulatory framing of digital replicas and postmortem rights

Protect Postmortem Rights and Digital Estates in 2026

Digital replicas are moving from science fiction to everyday legal reality, and regulators are racing to keep up. By mid‑2025, 47 U.S. states had enacted some form of deepfake law, with 64 new deepfake‑related laws passed in just one year, which is already reshaping how we handle digital personas, postmortem rights, and estate planning platforms.

Key Takeaways

1. What Are Digital Replicas And Why Are Regulators Suddenly Focused On Them?

When we talk about digital replicas, we mean AI‑generated versions of a person’s likeness, voice, or behavior that can speak, act, or even “keep posting” after they are gone. These range from simple chatbots trained on someone’s messages to full video avatars and posthumous AI personas.

Regulators are not starting from zero. Deepfake abuse already exploded, and Reuters reports that 98% of deepfake videos online are explicit images, mostly of women. That single statistic explains why lawmakers moved from theoretical debates to concrete statutes, and why conversations about postmortem rights and digital ghosts now sit inside serious policy work.

Our work on AI digital legacy started with a simple question: what happens to your data, personality, and online identity after death. As AI tools became capable of realistic voice cloning and behavioral simulation, it became clear that estate planning, digital archives, and consent flows all needed a regulatory lens.

In 2025, policymakers began to explicitly link deepfake harms to broader digital replicas regulation, including proposals like the No Fakes Act in the United States, which aims to create federal rights over one’s likeness and voice in AI systems.

2. How Does The No Fakes Act Fit Into Digital Replicas Regulation?

The proposed No Fakes Act is a centerpiece in the digital replicas conversation. At its core, it would create a federal right for individuals to control digital replicas of their voice and likeness, with particular focus on AI‑generated performances.

According to Reuters, the U.S. Copyright Office collected more than 10,000 public comments on AI regulation related to digital replicas. That volume of feedback shows how many creators, estates, platforms, and everyday users feel that existing copyright and publicity laws are not enough for AI‑generated personas.

For a digital estate platform, a No Fakes Act style regime would affect how we design permissions around posthumous AI personas. For example, we would need explicit, logged instructions in life about:

• Whether an AI avatar is allowed at all.
• Which data sources it can use, such as email, chat logs, or video.
• Who controls it after death, such as executors or specific heirs.
• Commercial use restrictions, such as advertising or entertainment.

We already see forward‑looking users asking for these controls inside digital wills, and our planning tools are evolving so that if a federal law passes, we can map these instructions directly onto legal rights rather than treating them as “preferences only”.

3. How Are States Regulating Digital Replicas, Deepfakes, And Postmortem Rights?

Federal debate is only one part of the picture. State law is where digital replicas regulation has moved fastest, especially around deepfakes and contract rules for digital likeness use. At least 12 states have already enacted laws addressing sexually explicit deepfakes as part of broader regulation efforts.

New York’s digital replica law (SB 7676B), effective January 1, 2025, regulates contracts for digital replicas of individuals and introduces protections against unauthorized posthumous commercial exploitation. California’s AB 2602, signed in September 2024 and effective January 2025, prohibits certain contract terms that allow use of a digital replica without informed consent and requires representation during negotiations.

For us, that means that if a user resides in New York or California, our platform must flag potential contract risks and ensure consent flows meet those statutory standards. For example, we cannot bundle digital replica permissions inside long boilerplate. We need concise, plain‑language prompts that clearly separate items such as:

• “Allow my likeness to be used in AI‑generated memorial content.”
• “Allow commercialization of my voice or image after death.”
• “Allow training of a conversational AI on my private messages.”

Postmortem rights are no longer handled solely by case law around deceased celebrities. As states legislate, any person can have specific protections around digital ghosts and AI personas, and our estate workflows adjust based on the jurisdiction detected at onboarding.

4. How Do Postmortem Rights Apply To AI “Digital Ghosts” And Archives?

Postmortem rights used to focus on physical property, financial assets, and sometimes publicity rights for well‑known individuals. AI has changed that scope. A “digital ghost” is an AI persona trained on a person’s data that can continue to answer questions, write messages, or even appear in new content after their death.

Our deep dive on posthumous AI personas and digital ghosts treats these systems as both assets and liabilities. They can comfort families, extend a creative legacy, or provide context for executors, but they also raise new questions. Who controls the ghost. Can heirs shut it down. Can a studio continue using an actor’s digital replica decades after death if the estate objects.

From a regulation standpoint, we expect three main anchors for postmortem rights over digital replicas:

1. Publicity and likeness rights that may extend past death in some states.
2. Contract law, especially around performers and creators who sign digital replica clauses while alive.
3. Data protection and privacy regimes, which can apply to training data, message archives, and biometric information.

Our role as a digital estate platform is to bring these legal concepts into plain‑English directives. We guide users to specify in their digital wills whether an AI persona is allowed, what its scope should be, and which heirs inherit the management rights or the ability to delete it permanently.

5. How Do Digital Wills And Estate Documents Need To Change?

Traditional wills handle assets, guardianship, and high‑level wishes. A modern digital will has to go further. It must capture access credentials, platform policies, crypto wallets, and now AI‑related instructions about digital replicas and posthumous communication.

Our guide on digital wills and estate tech explains how electronic wills are now recognized in many jurisdictions, especially after legislative updates through 2025. Digital wills let you embed preferences directly inside the tools that will execute them, which is crucial for granular control over AI personas.

For digital replicas regulation, we see three updates becoming standard in estate documents:

• Explicit AI persona clauses, stating yes or no to digital ghosts, including limits on scope and duration.
• Platform authorization, instructing services to shut down, archive, or continue curated posting after death.
• Consent to model training, addressing whether private data can be used to train any AI system, internal or external.

Each clause becomes evidence of informed consent, which is exactly what emerging state and federal frameworks expect. When executors present these directives to platforms or courts, they are not arguing from vague emails, but from clearly logged decisions tied to identity verification and timestamps.

6. How Should Consent, Opt‑Out, And Access Control Be Designed In A Digital Estate Platform?

Digital replicas regulation lives or dies on the quality of consent. Our platform design philosophy is simple: regulators, heirs, and users should all be able to tell what was agreed to, when, and under which terms in less than a minute.

According to First Insight data, 58% of people say they would actively push back or warn others if brands used digital replicas without consent, and 42% would reconsider their trust if synthetic feedback replaced real input. That public sentiment drives both stricter laws and higher expectations of transparent controls.

Practically, that means our consent and access‑control design includes:

• Granular opt‑outs for AI training, public replicas, and private digital ghosts.
• Role‑based permissions so that executors, heirs, and co‑executors have clearly scoped access.
• Audit logs that show when consents were granted or revoked, and by whom.
• Regional profiles so residents of different states or countries see disclosures aligned with their laws.

We also take inspiration from privacy legislation. Cisco’s 2024 survey found that 59% of people feel more comfortable sharing information with AI when strong privacy laws are in place. Clear regulatory alignment in our UX is not just about legal safety, it is about user comfort and long‑term trust in digital afterlife planning.

7. What Do Jurisdictional Differences Mean For Executors And Heirs?

Executors sit at the front line of digital replicas regulation. They must handle takedown requests, manage AI personas, and resolve disputes among heirs who may disagree about what should happen to a digital ghost. Jurisdictional differences make this even more complicated.

Consider three simplified scenarios:

Executors and heirs should expect our platform to “translate” this complexity. Once we know where the deceased lived, which laws apply, and who is appointed, we can adjust default settings for AI replicas, suggest which consent records to attach to submissions, and offer localized language for takedown or authorization letters.

In cross‑border contexts, especially for expats and those with tokenized assets, we also align our processes with local digital asset inheritance rules so executors are not surprised by conflicting obligations around privacy, property, and digital persona rights.

8. How Do Crypto, Tokenization, And On‑Chain Assets Intersect With Digital Replicas Regulation?

At first glance, crypto inheritance and AI replicas seem like separate topics. In practice, they intersect in three ways: identity, governance, and asset representation. Tokenization of assets, which our article on real‑world assets shaping digital legacies explores, uses blockchain to represent property and rights, sometimes including licensing for digital likenesses or content.

As more creative works and likeness deals are tokenized, heirs may find that rights to a digital replica are embedded in smart contracts. That means executors must manage both private keys and regulatory compliance around whether a tokenized replica is being used within legal and contractual limits.

Regulatory themes to watch in this intersection:

• Licensing tokens that encode consent and revocation of digital replica use.
• On‑chain evidence supporting heirs’ rights to control or shut down replicas.
• Cross‑border enforcement when smart contracts interact with users in multiple jurisdictions.

We encourage users to keep token inventories and replica‑related tokens clearly documented in their digital wills. That way, when heirs or executors access wallets, they know which assets are simply financial and which carry obligations or choices about digital persona governance.

9. How Do AI Agents And Automation Change Compliance For Digital Replicas?

Estate planning is increasingly powered by AI agents that can extract data, send reminders, and help executors follow complex workflows. When digital replicas regulation is added to the mix, AI agents must become compliance‑aware, not just productivity tools.

On our side, that means configuring AI agents to respect consent flags and regulatory boundaries. For example, an AI assistant might help an executor gather public content for a memorial archive, but it must avoid pulling in private messages if the deceased did not consent to training or replica creation.

We design our AI workflows with three safeguards:

• Policy‑aware prompts, so AI agents only propose actions that match the user’s jurisdiction and consents.
• Human confirmation before any new AI replica is created or trained.
• Clear logging of which data sources were used, to answer future regulatory or family questions.

As deepfake and digital replica laws get stricter, we expect regulators to ask how AI systems themselves make decisions about using personal data. Documented safeguards will matter as much as traditional controls like terms of service and privacy policies.

10. How Can Individuals And Families Prepare For Digital Replicas Regulation In Their Own Planning?

You do not need to be a celebrity or influencer to care about digital replicas. If you have a rich online presence, private messages, or recorded video and audio, AI systems can plausibly create a convincing digital version of you. The question is whether that happens with or without your consent and governance.

In our experience helping people build a digital afterlife plan, a simple, structured approach works best. You do not need to anticipate every law change, you just need to clearly state your preferences and keep them updated as regulation evolves.

We typically guide users through these steps inside our platform:

1. Inventory your digital footprint: accounts, devices, content, and any prior contracts that mention AI or digital replicas.
2. Document your preferences: a simple yes/no on AI personas, plus context if you say yes (scope, audience, duration).
3. Appoint a digital executor who understands technology and is comfortable navigating consent and takedowns.
4. Review annually as new laws emerge and as you add platforms or sign new contracts involving your likeness.

By setting this baseline, your family and advisors will not have to guess. They can rely on your recorded wishes, which map well to the kinds of consents legislators now expect to see when digital replicas are created or maintained.

Conclusion

Digital replicas regulation is no longer a niche concern. It is a fast‑moving, multi‑layered set of state, federal, and international rules that affect how your likeness, voice, and data can be turned into AI personas both in life and after death. For a digital estate platform like ours, that means rethinking consent, executor tools, and archives so they are not only secure and usable, but also compliant and respectful of postmortem rights.

If you want practical next steps, you can start by drafting or updating a digital will, writing a clear statement about whether you permit any AI replicas, and appointing a digital executor who can work with our tools. From there, reviewing your plan once a year is usually enough to keep up with new laws and new technologies, while ensuring that any digital ghost or archive that represents you does so on your terms.