What Happens to Your Online Accounts When You Die in Louisiana?
A succession representative in Louisiana can walk Letters of Administration into a bank and get a frozen checking account released the same afternoon. Present that same document to Google, Apple, or Meta and the answer is often silence, a form-letter refusal, or a demand for a court order the family never budgeted for.
Digital property does not transfer the way a bank account does. And the accounts a family needs most in the weeks after a death are usually the ones that resist hardest — the email showing which debts are outstanding, the cloud drive holding the business files, the exchange account with cryptocurrency in it, the domain name the family company runs on.
Most of what has been written about this problem in the United States describes a law that does not apply in Louisiana.
Louisiana Never Adopted RUFADAA
Nearly every state has enacted the Revised Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act, a uniform law published in 2015. RUFADAA sets up a three-tier hierarchy of control and splits fiduciary access into two tracks: the “catalogue” of a person’s communications, which an executor can usually get, and the “content” of those communications, which stays locked unless the deceased affirmatively consented. Louisiana is one of the few states that never enacted it.
The Legislature came close. House Bill 1118 in the 2016 Regular Session would have enacted RUFADAA as Chapter 44 of Title 51, R.S. 51:2701 through 2720. It cleared the House 86–0, cleared the Senate 33–0 with amendments, and went to a conference committee. The House adopted the conference report 76–14 on June 6, 2016 — the final day of the session. The Senate never adopted it. The bill died on the calendar and was never signed into law.
That history matters more than a footnote, because a great deal of published material — national explainers, law firm pages, and AI-generated summaries alike — states or quietly assumes that Louisiana has a RUFADAA statute. It does not. There is no La. R.S. 51:2701. An estate plan drafted around the RUFADAA framework is drafted around a statute this state never enacted.
What Louisiana Actually Has: Article 3191
Two years before the RUFADAA bill failed, Louisiana had already gone its own way. Acts 2014, No. 758 added paragraphs C through H to Code of Civil Procedure Article 3191 — the article that sets out the general duties of a succession representative.
A direct grant of power. Under art. 3191(C), subject to any restriction in a valid testament or a court order, a succession representative has the power and authority to take control of, handle, conduct, continue, distribute, or terminate any digital account of the decedent.
A thirty-day deadline on the company. Under art. 3191(D)(1), and to the extent federal law permits, any person that stores, maintains, manages, controls, operates, or administers a decedent’s digital accounts must transfer, deliver, or provide the succession representative access or possession within thirty days after receiving letters testamentary, letters of administration, or letters of independent administration.
A separate path for banks. Art. 3191(D)(2) routes federally insured financial institutions to R.S. 6:325 and 6:767 instead. Those statutes provide that letters constitute full and proper authority for a bank or savings association to grant a succession representative access to the deceased customer’s accounts and safety deposit box, and they shield the institution from liability for doing so.
An override of terms of service. Art. 3191(E) provides that the article supersedes any contrary provision in a service agreement, and that the succession representative is considered an authorized user with lawful consent of the decedent for purposes of accessing or possessing the digital accounts.
Two limits and an immunity. Art. 3191(F) keeps the authority subject to copyright law, provides that it does not expand the license granted in the account’s terms of service, and makes the representative personally responsible for any infringement in transferring or distributing account contents. Art. 3191(G) immunizes providers from suit under Louisiana law for disclosures made under the article.
A broad definition. Art. 3191(H) defines “digital account” to include accounts on social networking, blog, microblog, short message service, email, and financial account websites, along with any similar electronic services or records — together with the words, characters, codes, or contractual rights needed to access them, and the text, images, multimedia, or other personal property stored through them.
Where Louisiana Is Stronger Than RUFADAA
In a RUFADAA state, the content of a decedent’s emails and messages is disclosed only if the user consented through an online tool or express language in the will, or if a court orders it. A will that says nothing about digital assets leaves the inbox locked, which is exactly where the financial trail usually lives.
Article 3191 has no content/catalogue split. It grants authority over the account, and its definition of that account expressly reaches the text and images stored through it. A Louisiana succession representative holding letters does not have to point to a consent clause in the testament in order to ask for the contents of an email account.
Silence in a Louisiana will is therefore permissive, not fatal. Under art. 3191(C) the testament operates as a limit on the representative’s authority, not as the source of it.
Article 3191(E) also does something RUFADAA leaves to inference: it deems the representative an authorized user acting with the decedent’s lawful consent. That language is aimed squarely at the federal privacy and computer-access statutes that make providers reluctant to release anything.
Where the Louisiana Approach Falls Short
It reaches one fiduciary and no others. Article 3191 is an article about succession representatives. Louisiana has no equivalent provision for a mandatary acting under a power of attorney during incapacity, for a trustee, or for a curator appointed after an interdiction. RUFADAA states have a section for each of them. Louisiana has none. For those fiduciaries the authority has to come from the drafting, because no statute supplies it.
It only works once letters issue. The thirty-day duty is triggered by letters testamentary, letters of administration, or letters of independent administration. A large share of Louisiana successions never produce any of them. A succession closed by a judgment of possession with no administration, or a small succession handled by affidavit, means no succession representative and no letters — and so no leverage under art. 3191 at all. The heirs own the accounts but hold nothing a compliance department recognizes.
There is a telling contrast here. The banking statutes were written to handle this: R.S. 6:325 expressly makes a small succession affidavit full and sufficient authority for a bank to release the money. Article 3191 has no such provision for digital accounts.
Federal law sits on top of it. The duty in art. 3191(D)(1) applies only “to the extent permitted by federal law,” and the federal Stored Communications Act restricts when a provider may disclose the contents of electronic communications. Paragraph E’s lawful-consent language is Louisiana’s attempt to satisfy that federal requirement. No Louisiana appellate decision has tested whether it succeeds. Large custodians run national compliance processes built around RUFADAA, and a Louisiana-specific demand often has to be escalated past the first automated response.
Nothing happens automatically if the deadline passes. The article says the custodian “shall” provide access within thirty days. It does not say what follows if the custodian ignores it. Enforcement means returning to the court that issued the letters, against a company with no Louisiana presence.
Louisiana Compared to the RUFADAA States
| Louisiana (C.C.P. art. 3191) | RUFADAA states | |
|---|---|---|
| Structure | One article inside the succession code | A standalone act, usually 15–20 sections |
| Email and message content | Included in the grant of authority | Only with express consent or a court order |
| Effect of a silent will | Authority still exists; the testament can restrict it | Content access is blocked |
| Online tools (Legacy Contact, Inactive Account Manager) | Not addressed by statute | Control first; override the will |
| Agent under a power of attorney | Not addressed | Covered, with an express grant required for content |
| Trustee | Not addressed | Covered |
| Curator or conservator | Not addressed | Covered, generally by court order |
| Deadline on the custodian | Thirty days from letters | Typically sixty days from a complete request |
| What triggers it | Letters must have issued | Letters or the equivalent appointment document |
Access by Role Under Louisiana Law
| Role | Source of authority | What it takes in practice |
|---|---|---|
| Succession representative | C.C.P. art. 3191(C)–(H) | Letters, a death certificate, and the account identifier the company asks for |
| Heir under a judgment of possession | No statute on point | The judgment, plus whatever the provider’s terms allow |
| Small succession by affidavit | No statute for digital accounts; R.S. 6:325 covers banks | The affidavit works at a bank; online custodians recognize no fiduciary |
| Mandatary under a power of attorney | No statute on point | Express digital-account authority written into the mandate |
| Trustee | No statute on point | Express digital-account language in the trust instrument |
| Curator after interdiction | No statute on point | Letters of curatorship and, realistically, a specific court order |
| The account holder, during life | Contract with the provider | Google Inactive Account Manager, Apple Legacy Contact, Facebook Legacy Contact |
Drafting Mistakes That Cost Families Access
Copying RUFADAA language out of a national form. Clauses written to satisfy a statute Louisiana never enacted are aimed at nothing. Worse, a clause framed in RUFADAA’s vocabulary can be read as consenting to less than art. 3191 already grants.
Treating the will as the source of the authority. Under art. 3191(C) the testament’s role is to restrict. A will that carefully “grants” digital access and then limits it to a list of named accounts can leave the representative with less power than the statutory default. Grant broadly, or say nothing and let the article operate.
Planning for an administration that will never be opened. If the estate is headed for a judgment of possession with no administration, art. 3191 never activates. Where there are meaningful digital accounts, that is a reason to weigh whether an administration is worth opening — or to handle those accounts through designations made during life instead.
Leaving incapacity unplanned. This is where Louisiana’s gap bites hardest, because incapacity usually arrives before death does. A mandate granting “full and general authority” says nothing about digital accounts, and providers read general language narrowly. The mandate should name the authority expressly.
Ignoring the providers’ own tools. Google’s Inactive Account Manager, Apple’s Legacy Contact, and Facebook’s Legacy Contact are contractual designations, and Louisiana has no statute ranking them against a testament. A client who sets a Legacy Contact after signing an estate plan can create a conflict with no clear statutory answer. Set them deliberately and keep them consistent with the documents.
Treating a password list as a plan. Article 3191(E) makes a qualified succession representative an authorized user with lawful consent, so credentials plus letters is a genuinely strong position in Louisiana. A family member logging in with the same credentials and no appointment has none of that protection. A list of passwords helps only someone who already has authority.
Treating cryptocurrency as one thing. An account at a custodial exchange fits comfortably inside the art. 3191(H) definition. A self-custodied wallet has no custodian to serve, no terms of service to supersede, and no statutory remedy. If the seed phrase is lost, the asset is gone, and no court order retrieves it.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does Louisiana have RUFADAA? No. The 2016 bill that would have enacted it died in conference committee on the last day of the session. Louisiana’s rules for access to a decedent’s online accounts come from Code of Civil Procedure Article 3191, not from the uniform act.
Is a Louisiana executor’s access narrower than in other states? For email and message content it is actually broader, because art. 3191 imposes no consent requirement for content. The narrowness lies elsewhere: the article covers only succession representatives, and only after letters have issued.
What if the succession is handled without an administration? Then there is no succession representative and no letters, and the thirty-day duty is never triggered. The heirs are left with the provider’s terms of service. Where significant accounts are involved, that possibility is worth discussing before deciding how to open the succession.
Can a will override a tech company’s terms of service? Article 3191(E) says the article supersedes contrary terms. Whether an out-of-state provider honors that without a fight is a practical question, and the federal Stored Communications Act limits what a state can compel as to the contents of communications. Expect the first response to be a form letter.
What happens to cryptocurrency? Accounts at custodial exchanges are digital accounts under art. 3191(H). Self-custodied wallets fall outside the statute entirely, and access depends on locating the private keys.
Does this cover a work account or a company domain? Article 3191 contains no employer-account exclusion, unlike RUFADAA. But an account owned by a company is company property. It passes through the entity’s governing documents and the decedent’s ownership interest, not through the individual’s estate plan.
Is there a deadline the company has to meet? Thirty days after it receives the letters, under art. 3191(D)(1), to the extent federal law permits. The article does not specify a penalty for missing it.
Citation Reference
| Citation | Subject |
|---|---|
| La. C.C.P. art. 3191(C) | Succession representative’s power over the decedent’s digital accounts |
| La. C.C.P. art. 3191(D)(1) | Thirty-day duty on the custodian following letters |
| La. C.C.P. art. 3191(D)(2) | Routing of federally insured financial institutions to the banking statutes |
| La. R.S. 6:325 | Bank access and transfer on a customer’s death; small succession affidavit |
| La. R.S. 6:767 | Same, for savings associations |
| La. C.C.P. art. 3191(E) | Supersedes contrary terms of service; authorized user with lawful consent |
| La. C.C.P. art. 3191(F) | Copyright limitation and personal responsibility for infringement |
| La. C.C.P. art. 3191(G) | Immunity for providers that disclose under the article |
| La. C.C.P. art. 3191(H) | Definition of “digital account” |
| Acts 2014, No. 758 | The act adding paragraphs C through H to art. 3191 |
| La. H.B. 1118 (2016 R.S.) | The failed RUFADAA bill |
| 18 U.S.C. §§ 2701–2712 | Stored Communications Act |
A Note From Bloom Legal
This article is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Access to a decedent’s digital accounts depends on the particular custodian, the type of account, how the succession is opened, and the terms of the governing instruments, and outcomes vary. Reading this article does not create an attorney-client relationship with Bloom Legal or any of its attorneys. For guidance on digital asset provisions in a Louisiana estate plan, or on obtaining access to a decedent’s online accounts, consult a licensed Louisiana attorney about the facts of your situation.
