An Act To Enact the Recommendations of the Probate and Trust Law Advisory Commission Regarding the Maine Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act
Maine Legislature, Session 127, LD 1177
Committee: Judiciary
Amends: 18-A MRSA §5

Legislative Document 
No. 1177 
H.P. 809 
House of Representatives, April 1, 2015 
An Act To Enact the Recommendations of the Probate and Trust 
Law Advisory Commission Regarding the Maine Uniform Fiduciary 
Access to Digital Assets Act 
Reported by Representative HOBBINS of Saco for the Joint Standing Committee on 
Judiciary pursuant to Resolve 2013, chapter 27, section 2. 
Reference to the Committee on Judiciary suggested and ordered printed pursuant to Joint 
Rule 218. 
ROBERT B. HUNT 
Clerk 
Be it enacted by the People of the State of Maine as follows: 
PART A 
UNIFORM FIDUCIARY ACCESS TO DIGITAL ASSETS ACT 
PREFATORY NOTE 
The purpose of this act is to vest fiduciaries with the authority to access, control, or 
copy digital assets and accounts.  The act applies only to fiduciaries, who must always act 
in compliance with their fiduciary powers and duties.  The goal of the Uniform Fiduciary 
Access to Digital Assets Act (UFADAA) is to remove barriers to a fiduciary's access to 
electronic records and to leave unaffected other law, such as fiduciary, probate, trust, 
banking, investment securities, and agency law.  Existing law prohibits any fiduciary 
from violating fiduciary responsibilities by divulging or publicizing any information the 
fiduciary obtains while carrying out his or her fiduciary duties. 
UFADAA addresses four different types of fiduciaries: personal representatives of 
decedents' estates, conservators for protected persons and individuals, agents acting 
pursuant to a power of attorney, and trustees.  It distinguishes the authority of fiduciaries, 
which exercise authority subject to this act only on behalf of the account holder, from any 
other efforts to access the digital assets.  Family members or friends may seek such 
access, but, unless they are fiduciaries, their efforts are subject to other laws and are not 
covered by this act. 
As the number of digital assets held by the average person increases, questions 
surrounding the disposition of these assets upon the individual's death or incapacity are 
becoming more common.  Few laws exist on the rights of fiduciaries over digital assets.  
Few holders of digital assets and accounts consider the fate of their online presences once 
they are no longer able to manage their assets.  And these assets have real value: 
according to a 2011 survey from McAfee, Intel's security-technology unit, American 
consumers valued their digital assets, on average, at almost $55,000.  Kelly Greene, 
Passing Down Digital Assets, WALL STREET JOURNAL (Aug. 31, 2012), 
http://goo.gl/7KAaOm.  These assets range from online gaming items to photos, to 
digital music, to client lists.  There are millions of Internet accounts that belong to dead 
people.  Some Internet service providers have explicit policies on what will happen when 
an individual dies, others do not; even where these policies are included in the 
terms-of-service agreement, most consumers click through these agreements. 
The situation regarding fiduciaries' access to digital assets is less than clear, and is 
subject to federal and state privacy and computer "hacking" laws as well as state probate 
law.  A minority of states has enacted legislation on fiduciary access to digital assets, and 
numerous other states have considered, or are considering, legislation.  Existing 
legislation differs with respect to the types of digital assets covered, the rights of the 
fiduciary, the category of fiduciary included, and whether the principal's death or 
incapacity is covered.  A uniform approach among states will provide certainty and 
predictability for courts, account holders, fiduciaries, and Internet service providers.  It 
gives states precise, comprehensive, and easily accessible guidance on questions 
concerning fiduciaries' ability to access the electronic records of a decedent, protected 
person, principal, or a trust.  For issues on which states diverge or on which the law is 
unclear or unknown, the act will for the first time provide uniform rules. 
The general goal of the act is to facilitate fiduciary access while respecting the 
privacy and intent of the account holder.  It adheres to the traditional approach of trusts 
and estates law, which respects the intent of the account holder and promotes the 
fiduciary's ability to administer the account holder's property in accord with legally-
binding fiduciary duties. 
With regard to the general scope of the act, the act's coverage is inherently limited by 
the definition of "digital assets."  The act applies only to electronic records, which do not 
include the underlying asset or liability unless it is itself an electronic record. 
The act is divided into fifteen sections.  Sections 1-2 contain general provisions and 
definitions, including those relating to the scope of the fiduciary's authority. 
Section 3 governs applicability, clarifying the scope of the act and the fiduciaries who 
have access to digital assets under UFADAA.  Section 3 states that the act does not apply 
to the digital assets of an employer used by an employee during the ordinary course of 
business. 
Sections 4-7 establish the rights of personal representatives, conservators, agents 
acting pursuant to a power of attorney, and trustees.  Each of the fiduciaries is subject to 
different opt-in and default rules based on the presumed intent of the account holder and 
the applicability of other state and federal laws.  A personal representative is presumed to 
have access to all of the decedent's digital assets unless that is contrary to the decedent's 
expressed intent or to other applicable law.  A conservator may access digital assets 
pursuant to a court order.  An agent acting pursuant to a power of attorney is presumed to 
have access to all of a principal's digital assets not subject to the protections of other 
applicable law; if another law protects the asset, then the power of attorney must 
explicitly grant access.  And a trustee may access any digital asset held by the trust unless 
that is contrary to the terms of the trust or to other applicable law. 
Section 8 contains general provisions relating to the rights of the fiduciary to access 
digital assets.  Section 9 addresses compliance, and Section 10 grants immunity to 
custodians.  Sections 11-15 address miscellaneous topics, including retroactivity, the 
effective date of the act, and similar issues.  The act addresses only the rights of the four 
types of fiduciaries, and it is designed to provide access without changing the ownership 
of the digital asset. 
Sec. A-1.  18-A MRSA, art. 10 is enacted to read: 
ARTICLE 10 
MAINE UNIFORM FIDUCIARY ACCESS TO DIGITAL ASSETS ACT 
§10-101.  Short title 
This Act may be known and cited as "the Maine Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital 
Assets Act." 
§10-102.  Definitions 
As used in this Act, unless the context otherwise indicates, the following terms have 
the following meanings. 
(a).  "Account holder" means a person that has entered into a terms of service 
agreement with a custodian or a fiduciary for the person. 
(b).  "Agent" means an attorney in fact granted authority under a durable or 
nondurable power of attorney. 
(c).  "Carries" means engages in the transmission of electronic communications. 
(d).  "Catalogue of electronic communications" means information that identifies 
each person with which an account holder has had an electronic communication, the time 
and date of the communication and the electronic address of the person. 
(e).  "Conservator" means a person appointed by a court to manage the estate of a 
living individual.  The term includes a limited conservator. 
(f).  "Content of an electronic communication" means information concerning the 
substance or meaning of the communication that: 
(1).  Has been sent or received by an account holder; 
(2).  Is in electronic storage by a custodian providing an electronic communication 
service to the public or is carried or maintained by a custodian providing a remote 
computing service to the public; and 
(3).  Is not readily accessible to the public. 
(g).  "Court" means any one of the several courts of probate of this State established 
as provided in Title 4, sections 201 and 202. 
(h).  "Custodian" means a person that carries, maintains, processes, receives or stores 
a digital asset of an account holder. 
(i).  "Digital asset" means a record that is electronic.  The term does not include an 
underlying asset or liability unless the asset or liability is itself a record that is electronic. 
(j).  "Electronic" means relating to technology having electrical, digital, magnetic, 
wireless, optical, electromagnetic or similar capabilities. 
(k).  "Electronic communication" has the same meaning as the definition in 18 United 
States Code, Section 2510(12). 
(l).  "Electronic communication service" means a custodian that provides to an 
account holder the ability to send or receive an electronic communication. 
(m).  "Fiduciary" means an original, additional or successor personal representative, 
conservator, agent or trustee. 
(n).  "Governing instrument" means a will, trust, instrument creating a power of 
attorney or other dispositive or nominative instrument. 
(o).  "Information" means data, text, images, videos, sounds, codes, computer 
programs, software and databases or the like. 
(p).  "Person" means an individual, estate, business or nonprofit entity, public 
corporation, government or governmental subdivision, agency or instrumentality or other 
legal entity. 
(q).  "Personal representative" means an executor, administrator, special 
administrator or person that performs substantially the same function under the laws of 
this State other than this Act. 
(r).  "Power of attorney" means a record that grants an agent authority to act in the 
place of a principal. 
(s).  "Principal" means an individual who grants authority to an agent in a power of 
attorney. 
(t).  "Protected person" means an individual for whom a conservator has been 
appointed.  The term includes an individual for whom an application for the appointment 
of a conservator is pending. 
(u).  "Record" means information that is inscribed on a tangible medium or that is 
stored in an electronic or other medium and is retrievable in perceivable form. 
(v).  "Remote computing service" means a custodian that provides to an account 
holder computer processing services or the storage of digital assets by means of an 
electronic communications system, as defined in 18 United States Code, Section 
2510(14). 
(w).  "Terms of service agreement" means an agreement that controls the relationship 
between an account holder and a custodian. 
(x).  "Trustee" means a fiduciary with legal title to property pursuant to an agreement 
or declaration that creates a beneficial interest in another.  The term includes a successor 
trustee. 
(y).  "Will" includes a codicil, testamentary instrument that only appoints an executor 
and instrument that revokes or revises a testamentary instrument. 
Comment 
(Maine section 10-102 is based on the Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets 
Act section 2.) 
Many of the definitions are based on those in the Uniform Probate Code: agent (UPC 
Section 1-201(1)), conservator (UPC Section 5-102(1)), court (UPC Section 1-201(8)), 
electronic (UPC Section 5B-102(3)), fiduciary (UPC Section 1-201(15)), governing 
instrument (UPC Section 1-201(18)), person (UPC Section 5B-101(6)), personal 
representative (UPC Section 1-201(35)), power of attorney (UPC Section 5B-102(7)), 
principal (UPC Section 5B-102(9)), property (UPC Section 1-201(38)), protected person 
(UPC Section 5-102(8)), record (UPC Section 1-201(41)), and will (UPC Section 
1-201(57)).  The definition of "information" is based on that in the Uniform Electronic 
Transactions Act, Section 2, subsection (11).  Many of the other definitions are either 
drawn from federal law, as discussed below, or are new for this act. 
An account holder includes any person who entered into a terms-of-service 
agreement with a custodian, including a deceased individual who entered into the 
agreement during the individual's lifetime.  A fiduciary is defined as a person, and a 
fiduciary can be an account holder when the fiduciary opens the account. 
The definition of "carries" is drawn from federal law, 47 U.S.C. Section 1001(8). 
The term "catalogue of electronic communications" in Section 2(4) is designed to 
cover log-type information about an electronic communication such as the email 
addresses of the sender and the recipient, and the date and time the communication was 
sent.   
The term "content of an electronic communication" in Section 2(6) is adapted from 
U.S.C. Section 2510(8), which provides that content: "when used with respect to any 
wire, oral, or electronic communication, includes any information concerning the 
substance, purport, or meaning of that communication."  The 2(6) definition is designed 
to cover only content subject to the coverage of Section 2702 of the Electronic 
Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), 18 U.S.C. Section 2510 et seq.; it does not include 
content not subject to ECPA.  Consequently, the "content of an electronic 
communication", as used later throughout UFADAA, refers only to information in the 
body of an electronic message that is not readily accessible to the public; if the 
information were readily accessible to the public, it would not be subject to the privacy 
protections of federal law under ECPA.  See S. Rep. No. 99-541, at 36 (1986).  When the 
privacy protections of federal law under ECPA apply to the content of an electronic 
communication, the act's legislative history notes the requirements for disclosure: "Either 
the sender or the receiver can directly or through authorized agents authorize further 
disclosures of the contents of their electronic communication."  S. Rep. No. 99-541, at 37 
(1986). 
ECPA does not apply to private e-mail service providers, such as employers and 
educational institutions.  See 18 U.S.C. Section 2702(a)(2); James D. Lamm, Christina L. 
Kunz, Damien A. Riehl and Peter John Rademacher, The Digital Death Conundrum: 
How Federal and State Laws Prevent Fiduciaries from Managing Digital Property, 68 U. 
Miami L. Rev. 385, 404 (2014) (available at: http://goo.gl/T9jX1d). 
Example:  X uses a Twitter account to send a message. If the tweet is sent only to 
other people who have been granted access to X's tweets, then it meets the Act's 
definition of "content of an electronic communication." But, if the tweet is completely 
public with no access restrictions, then it does not meet the Act's definition of "content of 
an electronic communication." 
 A custodian includes any Internet service provider as well as any other entity that 
provides or stores electronic data of an account holder.  A custodian does not include 
most employers because an employer typically does not have a terms-of-service 
agreement with an employee.  The treatment of digital assets of an employer used by an 
employee in the ordinary course of the employer's business is discussed in Section 3. 
The definition of a digital asset specifies that it is "a record that is electronic."  
Because records may exist in both electronic and non-electronic formats, this definition 
clarifies the scope of the act and the limitation on the type of records to which it applies.  
The term includes products currently in existence and yet to be invented that are available 
only electronically.  It refers to any type of electronically-stored information, such as: 1) 
any information stored on a computer and other digital devices; 2) content uploaded onto 
websites, ranging from photos to documents; and 3) rights in digital property, such as 
domain names or digital entitlements associated with online games.  See Lamm, et al, 
supra, at 388.  Both the catalogue and content of an electronic communication are 
covered by the term "digital assets." 
The fiduciary's access to a record defined as a "digital asset" does not mean that the 
fiduciary is entitled to "own" the asset or otherwise engage in transactions with the asset.  
Consider, for example, funds in a bank account or securities held with a broker or other 
custodian, regardless of whether the bank, broker, or custodian has a brick-and-mortar 
presence.  This act affects records concerning the bank account or securities, but does not 
affect the authority to engage in transfers of title or other commercial transactions in the 
funds or securities, even though such transfers or other transactions might occur 
electronically.  UFADAA simply reinforces the right of the fiduciary to access all 
relevant electronic communications and the online account that provides evidence of 
ownership or similar rights.  An entity may not refuse to provide access to online records 
any more than the entity can refuse to provide the fiduciary with access to hard copy 
records. 
The definition of "electronic communication" in Section 2(11) is that set out in 18 
U.S.C. Section 2510(12): 
"electronic communication" means any transfer of signs, signals, writing, images, 
sounds, data, or intelligence of any nature transmitted in whole or in part by a wire, 
radio, electromagnetic, photoelectronic or photooptical system that affects interstate 
or foreign commerce, but does not include— 
(A) any wire or oral communication; 
(B) any communication made through a tone-only paging device; 
(C) any communication from a tracking device (as defined in section 3117 of 
this title); or 
(D) electronic funds transfer information stored by a financial institution in a 
communications system used for the electronic storage and transfer of funds. 
The definition of "electronic-communication service" in Section 2(12) is drawn from 
U.S.C. Section 2510(15): "any service which provides to users thereof the ability to 
send or receive wire or electronic communications."  The definition of 
"remote-computing service" in Section 2(22) is adapted from 18 U.S.C. Section 2711(2): 
"the provision to the public of computer storage or processing services by means of an 
electronic communications system." The definition refers to 18 U.S.C. Section 2510(14), 
which defines an electronic communications system as: "any wire, radio, electromagnetic, 
photooptical or photoelectronic facilities for the transmission of wire or electronic 
communications, and any computer facilities or related electronic equipment for the 
electronic storage of such communications." 
Electronic communication is a particular type of digital asset and covers only the 
category of digital assets subject to the privacy protections of the Electronic 
Communications Privacy Act.  For example, material stored on a computer's hard drive is 
a digital asset but not an electronic communication. 
A "fiduciary" under this act occupies a status recognized by state law, and a 
fiduciary's powers under this act are subject to the relevant limits established by other 
state laws.  The definition of fiduciary specifically applies to "each person" in order to 
cover co-fiduciaries. 
The term "record" includes information available in both tangible and electronic 
media.  The act applies only to electronic records. 
The "terms-of-service agreement" definition relies on the definition of "agreement" 
found in UCC Section 1-201(b)(3) ("the bargain of the parties in fact, as found in their 
language or inferred from other circumstances, including course of performance, course 
of dealing, or usage of trade").  It refers to any agreement that controls the relationship 
between an account holder and a custodian, even though it might be called a terms-of-use 
agreement, a click-wrap agreement, a click-through license, or a similar term.  State and 
federal law determine capacity to enter into a binding terms-of-service agreement. 
§10-103.  Applicablity 
(a).  This Act applies to: 
(1).  A fiduciary or agent acting under a will or power of attorney executed before, on 
or after January 1, 2016; 
(2).  A personal representative acting for a decedent who died before, on or after 
January 1, 2016; 
(3).  A conservatorship proceeding, whether pending in a court or commenced before, 
on or after January 1, 2016; and 
(4).  A trustee acting under a trust created before, on or after the effective date of this 
Act. 
(b).  This Act does not apply to a digital asset of an employer used by an employee in 
the ordinary course of the employer's business. 
Comment 
(Maine section 10-103 is based on the Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets 
Act Section 3.) 
This act does not change the substantive rules of other law, such as agency, banking, 
conservatorship, contract, copyright, criminal, fiduciary, privacy, probate, property, 
security, trust, or other applicable law except to vest fiduciaries with authority, according 
to the provisions of this act, to access, control, or copy digital assets of a decedent, 
protected person (or other individual under Section 5), principal, settlor, or trustee. 
Subsection (a)(2) covers the situations in which a decedent dies intestate, so it falls 
outside of subsection (a)(1), as well as the situations in which a state's procedures for 
small estates are used. 
Subsection (b) clarifies that the act does not apply to a fiduciary's access to an 
employer's internal email system. 
Example 1—Fiduciary access to an employee e-mail account.  D dies, employed by 
Company Y.  Company Y has an internal e-mail communication system, available only to 
Y's employees, and used by them in the ordinary course of Y's business.  D's personal 
representative, R, believes that D used Company Y's e-mail system to effectuate some 
financial transactions that R cannot find through other means.  R requests access from 
Company Y to the e-mails. 
Company Y is not a custodian subject to the act.  Under Section 2(7), a custodian 
must carry, maintain or store an account holder's digital assets.  An account holder, in 
turn, is defined under Section 2(1) as someone who has entered into a terms-of-service 
agreement.  Company Y, like most employers, did not enter into a terms-of-service 
agreement with D, so D was not an account holder. 
Example 2—Employee of electronic-communication service provider.  D dies, 
employed by Company Y.  Company Y is an electronic-communication service provider.  
Company Y has an internal e-mail communication system, available only to Y's 
employees and used by them in the ordinary course of Y's business.  D used the internal 
Company Y system.  When not at work, D also used an electronic-communication service 
system that Company Y provides to the public.  D's personal representative, R, believes 
that D used Company Y's internal e-mail system as well as Company Y's 
electronic-communication system available to the public to effectuate some financial 
transactions.  R seeks access to both communication systems. 
As is true in Example 1, Company Y is not a custodian subject to the act for purposes 
of the internal email system.  The situation is different with respect to R's access to 
Company Y's system that is available to the public.  Assuming that Company Y can 
disclose the communications under federal law, then Company Y must disclose them to 
R. 
§10-104.  Access by personal representative to digital asset of decedent 
Subject to section 10-108, subsection (b) and unless otherwise ordered by the court or 
provided in the will of a decedent, the personal representative of the decedent has the 
right to access: 
(a).  The content of an electronic communication that the custodian is permitted to 
disclose under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 United States Code, 
Section 2702(b); 
(b).  Any catalogue of electronic communications sent or received by the decedent; 
and 
(c).  Any other digital asset in which at death the decedent had a right or interest. 
Comment 
(Maine section 10-104 is based on the Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets 
Act Section 4.) 
This section is modeled on the formulation of the personal representative's default 
power set out in UPC Section 3-715.  The phrase, "unless otherwise…provided by the 
will," is intended to indicate that a will controls the personal representative's authority.  
As is true more generally with respect to interpretation of wills, public policy can 
override the explicit terms of a will. 
The section clarifies the difference between fiduciary authority over digital assets 
other than the content of an electronic communication protected by ECPA and authority 
over ECPA-covered content of an electronic communication.  For the content of an 
electronic communication, subsections (1) and (2) establish procedures that cover: first, 
the ECPA-covered content of communications and, second, the catalogue (logs and 
records) that electronic communications service providers may release without consent 
under the ECPA.  Federal law distinguishes between the permissible disclosure of the 
"content" of an electronic communication, covered in 18 U.S.C. Section 2702(b), and of 
"a record or other information pertaining to a" subscriber or customer, covered in 18 
U.S.C. Section 2702(c); see Matthew J. Tokson, The Content/Envelope Distinction in 
Internet Law, 50 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 2105 (2009). 
Content-based material can, in turn, be divided into two types of communications: 
those received by the account holder and those sent.  Federal law, 18 U.S.C. Section 
2702(b) permits a custodian to "divulge the contents of a communication "(1) to an 
addressee or intended recipient of such communication or an agent of such addressee or 
intended recipient" or "(3) 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." 
Consequently, when the account holder is the "addressee or intended recipient," 
material can be disclosed either to that individual or to an agent for that person, 18 U.S.C. 
Section 2702(b)(1), and it can also be disclosed to third parties with the "lawful consent" 
of the addressee or intended recipient.  18 U.S.C. Section 2702(b)(3).  Material for which 
the account holder is the "originator" can be disclosed to third parties only with the 
account holder's "lawful consent."  18 U.S.C. Section 2702(b)(3).  (Note that, when the 
account holder is the addressee or intended recipient, material can be disclosed under 
either (b)(1) or (b)(3), but that when the account holder is the originator, lawful consent is 
required under (b)(3).)  See the Comments concerning the definition of "content" after 
Section 2.  By contrast to content-based material, non-content material can be disclosed 
either with the lawful consent of the account holder or to any person (other than a 
governmental entity) even without lawful consent.  This information includes material 
about any communication sent, such as the addressee, sender, date/time, and other 
subscriber data, which this act defines as the "catalogue of electronic communications."  
(Further discussion of this issue and examples are set out in the Comments to Section 8, 
infra.) 
§10-105.  Access by conservator to digital asset of protected person 
Subject to section 10-108, subsection (b), the court, after an opportunity for hearing 
under Article 5, Part 4, may grant a conservator the right to access: 
(a).  The content of an electronic communication that the custodian is permitted to 
disclose under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 United States Code, 
Section 2702(b); 
(b).  Any catalogue of electronic communications sent or received by the protected 
person; and 
(c).  Any other digital asset in which the protected person has a right or interest. 
Comment 
(Maine section 10-105 is based on the Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets 
Act section 5.) 
Section 5 establishes that the conservator must be specifically authorized by the court 
to access the protected person's digital assets.  Each of the different levels of access to the 
content of an electronic communication, to the catalogue of electronic communications, 
and to any other digital assets must be specifically granted by court order.  The 
requirement in Section 5 for express authority over digital assets does not limit the 
fiduciary's authority over the underlying assets, such as funds held in a bank account.  
The meaning of the term "hearing" will vary from state to state according to state law and 
procedures. 
Section 5 is comparable to Section 4.  It responds to the concerns of Internet service 
providers who believe that the act should be structured to clarify the difference between 
fiduciary authority over digital assets other than the content of an electronic 
communication protected by federal law (the Electronic Communications Privacy Act 
(ECPA)), and fiduciary authority over ECPA-protected content of an electronic 
communication.  Consequently, Section 5 sets out separate procedures for digital assets as 
well as the catalogue of electronic communications (logs and records) that relevant 
service providers may release without consent under ECPA, and the ECPA-covered 
content of an electronic communication. 
The section refers to an individual or a protected person because a conservator may 
be appointed for a single transaction or without a finding that the person is a protected 
person. 
State law will establish the criteria for when a court will grant power to the 
conservator.  For example, UPC Section 5-411(c) requires the court to consider the 
decision the protected person would have made as well as a list of other factors.  Existing 
state law may also set out the requisite standards for a conservator's actions.  Under 
Section 8, if access to digital assets is granted by the court, the conservator has the same 
power over digital assets as the account holder.  The conservator must exercise authority 
in the interests of the protected person. 
§10-106.  Access by agent to digital asset of principal 
(a).  To the extent a power of attorney expressly grants an agent authority over the 
content of an electronic communication of the principal and subject to section 10-108, 
subsection (b), the agent has the right to access the content of an electronic 
communication that the custodian is permitted to disclose under the Electronic 
Communications Privacy Act, 18 United States Code, Section 2702(b). 
(b).  Subject to section 10-108, subsection (b) and unless otherwise ordered by the 
court or provided by a power of attorney, an agent has the right to access: 
(1).  Any catalogue of electronic communications sent or received by the principal; 
and 
(2).  Any other digital asset in which the principal has a right or interest. 
Comment 
(Maine section 10-106 is based on the Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets 
Act section 6.) 
This section establishes that the agent has default authority over all of the principal's 
digital assets, other than the content of the principal's electronic communications.  When 
the principal does not want the agent to exercise such broad authority, then the power of 
attorney must explicitly prevent an agent from doing so.  An agent has access to the 
content of electronic communications only when the power of attorney explicitly grants 
access. 
Paragraph (a) is modeled on UPC Section 5B-201(a).  Because a power of attorney 
contains the consent of the account holder, ECPA should not prevent the agent from 
exercising authority over the content of an electronic communication.  See the Comments 
concerning the definitions of the "content of an electronic communication" after Section 
2.  There should be no question that an explicit delegation of authority in a power of 
attorney constitutes authorization from the account holder to access digital assets and 
provides "lawful consent" to allow disclosure of the content of an electronic 
communication from an electronic-communication service or a remote-computing service 
pursuant to applicable law.  Both authorization and lawful consent are important because 
U.S.C. Section 2701 deals with intentional access without authorization and 18 U.S.C. 
Section 2702 allows a service provider to disclose with lawful consent.  Federal courts 
have not yet interpreted how ECPA affects a fiduciary's efforts to access the content of an 
electronic communication.  E.g., In re Facebook, Inc., 923 F. Supp. 2d 1204 (N.D. Cal. 
2012). 
§10-107.  Access by trustee to digital asset 
(a).  Subject to section 10-108, subsection (b) and unless otherwise ordered by the 
court or provided in a trust, a trustee that is an original account holder has the right to 
access any digital asset held in trust, including any catalogue of electronic 
communications of the trustee and the content of an electronic communication. 
(b).  Subject to 10-108, subsection (b) and unless otherwise ordered by the court or 
provided in a trust, a trustee that is not an original account holder has the right to access: 
(1).  The content of an electronic communication that the custodian is permitted to 
disclose under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 United States Code, 
Section 2702(b); 
(2).  Any catalogue of electronic communications sent or received by the original or 
any successor account holder; and 
(3).  Any other digital asset in which the original or any successor account holder has 
a right or interest. 
Comment 
(Maine section 10-107 is based on the Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets 
Act Section 7.) 
Subsection (a) clarifies that access to digital assets, including the content of electronic 
communications, is presumed with respect to assets for which the trustee is the initial 
account holder.  A trustee may have title to digital assets when the trustee opens an 
account as trustee; under those circumstances, the trustee can access the content of each 
digital asset that is in an account for which the trustee is the original account holder, not 
necessarily each digital asset held in the trust. 
Subsection (b) addresses situations involving an inter vivos transfer of a digital asset 
into a trust, a transfer into a testamentary trust, or a transfer via a pourover will or other 
governing instrument of a digital asset into a trust.  In those situations, a trustee becomes 
a successor account holder when the settlor transfers a digital asset into the trust.  There 
should be no question that the trustee with legal title to the digital asset was authorized by 
the settlor to access the digital assets so transferred, including both the catalogue and 
content of an electronic communication, and this provides "lawful consent" to allow 
disclosure 
of 
the 
content 
of 
an 
electronic 
communication 
from 
an 
electronic-communication service or a remote-computing service pursuant to applicable 
law.  See the Comments concerning the definitions of the "content of an electronic 
communication" after Section 2.  Nonetheless, subsection (2) distinguishes between the 
catalogue and content of an electronic communication in case there are any questions 
about whether the form in which property transferred into a trust is held constitutes lawful 
consent.  Both authorization and lawful consent are important because 18 U.S.C. Section 
2701 deals with intentional access without authorization and because 18 U.S.C. Section 
2702 allows a service provider to disclose with lawful consent. 
The underlying trust documents and default trust law will supply the allocation of 
responsibilities between and among trustees. 
§10-108.  Fiduciary authority 
(a).  A fiduciary that is an account holder or has the right under this Act to access a 
digital asset of an account holder: 
(1).  Subject to the terms of service agreement, copyright law and other applicable 
law, may take any action concerning the asset to the extent of the account holder's 
authority and the fiduciary's power under the law of this State other than this Act; 
(2).  Has, for the purpose of applicable electronic privacy laws, the lawful consent of 
the account holder for the custodian to divulge the content of an electronic 
communication to the fiduciary; and 
(3).  Is, for the purpose of applicable computer fraud and unauthorized computer 
access laws, including Title 17-A, chapter 18, an authorized user. 
(b).  Unless an account holder, after January 1, 2016, agrees to a provision in a terms 
of service agreement that limits a fiduciary's access to a digital asset of the account holder 
by an affirmative act separate from the account holder's assent to other provisions of the 
agreement: 
(1).  The provision is void as against the strong public policy of this State; and 
(2).  The fiduciary's access under this Act to a digital asset does not violate the terms 
of service agreement even if the agreement requires notice of a change in the account 
holder's status. 
(c).  A choice of law provision in a terms of service agreement is unenforceable 
against a fiduciary acting under this Act to the extent the provision designates law that 
enforces a limitation on a fiduciary's access to a digital asset, and the limitation is void 
under subsection (b). 
(d).  As to tangible personal property capable of receiving, storing, processing or 
sending a digital asset, a fiduciary with authority over the property of a decedent, 
protected person, principal or settlor: 
(1).  Has the right to access the property and any digital asset stored in it; and 
(2).  Is an authorized user for purposes of any applicable computer fraud and 
unauthorized computer access laws, including Title 17-A, chapter 18. 
Comment 
(Maine section 10-108 is based on the Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets 
Act Section 8.) 
This issue concerning the parameters of the fiduciary's authority potentially arises in 
two situations: 1) the fiduciary obtains access to a password or the like directly from the 
account holder, as would be true in various circumstances such as for the trustee of an 
inter vivos trust or someone who has stored passwords in a written or electronic list and 
those passwords are then transmitted to the fiduciary; and 2) the fiduciary obtains access 
pursuant to this act. 
This section clarifies that the fiduciary has the same authority as the account holder if 
the account holder were the one exercising the authority (note that, where the account 
holder has died, this means that the fiduciary has the same access as the account holder 
had immediately before death).  This means that the fiduciary's authority to access the 
digital asset is the same as the account holder except where, pursuant to subsection (b), 
the account holder has explicitly opted out of fiduciary access.  In exercising its 
responsibilities, the fiduciary is subject to the duties and obligations established pursuant 
to state fiduciary law and is liable for breach of those duties.  Note that even if the digital 
asset were illegally obtained by the account holder, the fiduciary would still need access 
in order to handle that asset appropriately.  There may, for example, be tax consequences 
that the fiduciary would be obligated to report. 
In exercising its responsibilities, the fiduciary is subject to the same limitations as the 
account holder more generally.  For example, a fiduciary cannot delete an account if this 
would be fraudulent.  Similarly, if the account holder could challenge provisions in a 
terms-of-service agreement, then the fiduciary is also able to do so.  See Ajemian v. 
Yahoo!, Inc., 987 N.E.2d 604 (Mass. 2013). 
Subsection (a) is designed to establish that the fiduciary is authorized to exercise 
control over digital assets in accordance with other applicable laws.  The language 
mirrors that used in Title II of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 
(ECPA), also known as the Stored Communications Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2701 et seq. 
(2006); see, e.g., Orin S. Kerr, A User's Guide to the Stored Communications Act, and a 
Legislator's Guide to Amending It, 72 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 1208 (2004).  The subsection 
clarifies that state law treats the fiduciary as "authorized" under the two federal statutes 
that prohibit unauthorized access to computers and computer data, ECPA and the 
Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, as well as pursuant to any comparable state laws 
criminalizing unauthorized access.  Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 
1030 (2006); Lamm, et al., supra (state law may be useful to federal courts interpreting 
these statutes.) 
ECPA contains two potentially relevant prohibitions.  The first, 18 U.S.C. Section 
2701(a), defines the crime of unlawful access to stored communications, which applies to 
a person who "(1) intentionally accesses without authorization a facility through which an 
electronic communication service is provided; or (2) intentionally exceeds an 
authorization to access that facility…."  Thus, someone who has authorization to access 
the facility is not engaging in criminal behavior.  Moreover, this section does not apply to 
"conduct authorized…by a user of that service with respect to a communication of or 
intended for that user."  18 U.S.C. Section 2701(a), (c)(2). 
The second, 18 U.S.C. Section 2702, entitled "Voluntary disclosure of customer 
communications or records," concerns actions by the service provider.  It prohibits an 
electronic-communication service or a remote-computing service from knowingly 
divulging the content of an electronic communication that is stored by or carried or 
maintained on that service unless disclosure is made (among other exceptions) "to an 
addressee or intended recipient of such communication or an agent of such addressee or 
intended recipient" or "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."  18 U.S.C. Section 2702(b)(1), (3) (emphasis added).  See the 
Comments concerning the definitions of the "content of an electronic communication" 
after Section 2.  The statute permits disclosure of "customer records" that do not include 
content, either with lawful consent from the customer or "to any person other than a 
governmental entity."  18 U.S.C. Section 2702(c)(2) and (6).  Thus, in contrast to its 
restrictions on the release of content, the electronic-communication or remote-computing 
service provider is permitted to disclose the catalogue of electronic communications to 
anyone except the government. 
The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) prohibits unauthorized access to 
computers.  18 U.S.C. Section 1030.  Like ECPA, the CFAA similarly protects against 
anyone who "intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds 
authorized access."  18 U.S.C. Section 1030(a). 
State laws vary in their coverage but typically prohibit unauthorized computer access. 
By defining the fiduciary as an authorized user: 1) the fiduciary has authorization 
under applicable law to access the digital assets under the first relevant provision of 
ECPA, 18 U.S.C. Section 2701, as well as under the CFAA; and 2) the fiduciary has "the 
lawful consent" of the originator/subscriber under applicable law so that the service 
provider can voluntarily disclose the digital assets pursuant to the second relevant 
provision of ECPA, 18 U.S.C. Section 2702, including the content of an electronic 
communication.  Moreover, this language should be adequate to avoid liability under the 
state unauthorized computer access laws. 
Subsection (a)(1) states that the fiduciary can take actions to the extent of the 
fiduciary's power under the law of this state.  Note that the fiduciary's powers under state 
law are defined by statute, common law, and the terms of the governing instrument.   
Subsection (b) addresses whether account holders can opt out of the rules in this act 
and whether Internet service providers can prevent fiduciary access.  First, a 
terms-of-service agreement in which an account holder has made an affirmative choice to 
limit a fiduciary's right to access will supersede any contrary provision in a will, trust, 
protective order, or power of attorney.  The affirmative act must clearly demonstrate the 
account holder's deliberate intent to prevent fiduciary access.  Second, the subsection 
provides that any other term in a terms-of-service agreement that bars fiduciary access is 
void as against the state's strong public policy.  While all of a state's laws could be 
considered that state's public policy, the phrase "strong public policy" is to be construed 
under conflict of laws principles to protect fiduciary access to digital assets under this act, 
notwithstanding a contrary terms-of-service agreement provision and even if the 
terms-of-service agreement chooses the law of another state or country to govern its 
contractual rights and duties.  See Restatement (Second) Conflict of Laws § 90 and § 187 
cmt. G; see also Uniform Trust Code § 107(1).  However, a terms-of-service agreement 
provision for which an account holder has made an affirmative choice, separate from the 
account holder's assent to other provisions of the terms-of-service agreement, to limit a 
fiduciary's access to the account holder's digital assets is not voided by this act and will 
supersede any contrary provision in a will, or trust. (See Example 5). 
Subsection (b) reinforces the concept that the fiduciary "steps into the shoes" of the 
account holder, with no more—and no fewer—rights.  For example, the terms-of-service 
agreement controls the rights of the account holder (settlor, principal, incapacitated 
person, decedent).  The act does not permit the account holder's fiduciary to override the 
terms-of-service agreement in order to make a digital asset or collection of digital assets 
"descendible," although it does preserve the rights of the fiduciary to make the same 
claims as the account holder.  See Ajemian v. Yahoo!, Inc., 987 N.E.2d 604 (Mass. 2013); 
David Horton, Indescendibility, 102 Calif. L. Rev. 543 (2014). 
Under subsection (b), access by a fiduciary should not be considered a transfer or 
other use that would violate the anti-transfer terms or other terms of a terms-of-service 
agreement. 
Subsection (c) supports the importance of fiduciary access by providing that any 
choice of law governing the effect of a terms-of-service agreement that prevents fiduciary 
access is unenforceable. 
Subsection (d) clarifies that the fiduciary is authorized to access digital assets stored 
on tangible personal property, such as laptops, computers, smartphones or storage media 
of the decedent, protected person, principal, or settlor, exempting fiduciaries from 
application for purposes of state or federal laws on unauthorized computer access.  For 
criminal law purposes, this clarifies that the fiduciary is authorized to access all of the 
account holder's digital assets, whether held locally or remotely. 
Example 1—Access to digital assets by personal representative.  D dies with a will 
that is silent with respect to digital assets.  D has a bank account for which D received 
only electronic statements, D has stored photos in a cloud-based Internet account, and D 
has an e-mail account with a company that provides electronic-communication services to 
the public.  The personal representative of D's estate needs access to the electronic bank 
account statements, the photo account, and e-mails. 
The personal representative of D's estate has the authority to access D's electronic 
banking statements and D's photo account, which both fall under the act's definition of a 
"digital asset."  This means that, if these accounts are password-protected or otherwise 
unavailable to the personal representative, then the bank and the photo account service 
must give access to the personal representative when the request is made in accordance 
with Section 9.  If the terms-of-service agreement permits D to transfer the accounts 
electronically, then the personal representative of D's estate can use that procedure for 
transfer as well. 
The personal representative of D's estate is also able to request that the e-mail 
account service provider grant access to e-mails sent or received by D; ECPA permits the 
service provider to release the catalogue to the personal representative.  The service 
provider also must provide the personal representative access to the content of an 
electronic communication sent or received by D if the service provider is permitted under 
U.S.C. Section 2702(b) to disclose the content.  The bank may release the catalogue of 
electronic communications or content of an electronic communication for which it is the 
originator or the addressee because the bank is not subject to the ECPA. 
Example 2—Access to digital assets by conservator.  C is seeking appointment as the 
conservator for P.  P has a bank account for which P received only electronic statements, 
P has stored photos in a cloud-based Internet account, and P has an e-mail account with a 
company that provides electronic communication services to the public.  C needs access 
to the electronic bank account statements, the photo account, and e-mails. 
Without a court order that explicitly grants access to P's digital assets, including 
electronic communications, C has no authority pursuant to this act to access the electronic 
bank account statements, the photo account, or the e-mails.  Based on law outside of this 
act, the bank may release the catalogue of electronic communications or content of an 
electronic communication for which it is the originator or the addressee because the bank 
is not subject to the ECPA. 
Example 3—Access to digital assets by agent.  X creates a power of attorney 
designating A as X's agent.  The power of attorney expressly grants A authority over X's 
digital assets, including the content of an electronic communication.  X has a bank 
account for which X receives only electronic statements, X has stored photos in a 
cloud-based Internet account, and X has a game character and in-game property 
associated with an online game.  X also has an e-mail account with a company that 
provides electronic-communication services to the public. 
A has the authority to access X's electronic bank statements, the photo account, the 
game character and in-game property associated with the online game, all of which fall 
under the act's definition of a "digital asset."  This means that, if these accounts are 
password-protected or otherwise unavailable to A as X's agent, then the bank, the photo 
account service provider, and the online game service provider must give access to A 
when the request is made in accordance with Section 9.  If the terms-of-service agreement 
permits X to transfer the accounts electronically, then A as X's agent can use that 
procedure for transfer as well. 
As X's agent, A is also able to request that the e-mail account service provider grant 
access to e-mails sent or received by X; ECPA permits the service provider to release the 
catalogue.  The service provider also must provide A access to the content of an 
electronic communication sent or received by X if the service provider is permitted under 
U.S.C. Section 2702(b) to disclose the content.  The bank may release the catalogue of 
electronic communications or content of an electronic communication for which it is the 
originator or the addressee because the bank is not subject to the ECPA. 
Example 4—Access to digital assets by trustee.  T is the trustee of a trust established 
by S.  As trustee of the trust, T opens a bank account for which T receives only electronic 
statements.  S transfers into the trust to T as trustee (in compliance with a 
terms-of-service agreement) a game character and in-game property associated with an 
online game and a cloud-based Internet account in which S has stored photos.  S also 
transfers to T as trustee (in compliance with the terms-of-service agreement) an e-mail 
account with a company that provides electronic-communication services to the public. 
T is an original account holder with respect to the bank account that T opened, and T 
has the ability to access the electronic banking statements.  T, as successor account holder 
to S, may access the game character and in-game property associated with the online 
game and the photo account, which both fall under the act's definition of a "digital asset."  
This means that, if these accounts are password-protected or otherwise unavailable to T 
as trustee, then the bank, the photo account service provider, and the online game service 
provider must give access to T when the request is made in accordance with Section 9.  If 
the terms-of-service agreement permits the account holder to transfer the accounts 
electronically, then T as trustee can use that procedure for transfer as well. 
T as successor account holder of the e-mail account for which S was previously the 
account holder is also able to request that the e-mail account service provider grant access 
to e-mails sent or received by S; the ECPA permits the service provider to release the 
catalogue.  The service provider also must provide T access to the content of an electronic 
communication sent or received by S if the service provider is permitted under 18 U.S.C. 
Section 2702(b) to disclose the content.  The bank may release the catalogue of electronic 
communications or content of an electronic communication for which it is the originator 
or the addressee because the bank is not subject to the ECPA. 
Example 5—Access notwithstanding terms in a terms-of-service agreement.  D, who 
is domiciled in state X, dies.  D was a professional photographer who stored valuable 
digital photos in an online storage account provided by C.  P is appointed by a court in 
state X to administer D's estate.  P needs access to D's online storage account to inventory 
and appraise D's estate assets and to file D's estate tax return.  During D's lifetime, D 
entered into a terms-of-service agreement with C for the online storage account.  The 
choice-of-law provision selects the law of state Y to govern the contractual rights and 
duties under the terms-of-service agreement.  A provision of the terms-of-service 
agreement prohibits fiduciary access to the digital assets of an account holder, but D did 
not agree to that provision by an affirmative act separate from D's assent to other 
provisions of the terms-of-service agreement.  UFADAA has been enacted by state X but 
not by state Y.  Because P's access to D's assets is fundamental to carrying out P's 
fiduciary duties, a court should apply subsections (b) and (c) of this act under the law of 
state X to void the terms-of-service agreement provision prohibiting P's access to D's 
online account, even though the terms-of-service agreement selected the law of state Y to 
govern the contractual rights and duties under the terms-of-service agreement. 
§10-109.  Compliance 
(a).  If a fiduciary with a right under this Act to access a digital asset of an account 
holder complies with subsection (b), the custodian shall comply with the fiduciary's 
request in a record for: 
(1).  Access to the asset; 
(2).  Control of the asset; and 
(3).  A copy of the asset to the extent permitted by copyright law. 
(b).  If a request under subsection (a) is made by: 
(1).  A personal representative with the right of access under section 10-104, the 
request must be accompanied by a certified copy of the letters of authority of the 
representative or a court order; 
(2).  A conservator with the right of access under section 10-105, the request must be 
accompanied by a certified copy of the court order that gives the conservator 
authority over the digital asset; 
(3).  An agent with the right of access under section 10-106, the request must be 
accompanied by an original or a copy of the power of attorney that authorizes the 
agent to exercise authority over the digital asset and a certification of the agent, under 
penalty of perjury, that the power of attorney is in effect; and 
(4).  A trustee with the right of access under section 10-107, the request must be 
accompanied by a certified copy of the trust instrument, or a certification of the trust 
under Title 18-B, section 1013, that authorizes the trustee to exercise authority over 
the digital asset. 
(c).  A custodian shall comply with a request made under subsection (a) not later than 
days after receipt.  If the custodian fails to comply, the fiduciary may apply to the 
court for an order directing compliance. 
(d).  This section does not limit the right of a person to obtain a copy of a trust 
instrument in a judicial proceeding concerning the trust. 
Comment 
(Maine section 10-109 is based on the Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets 
Act Section 9.) 
Subsection (a) allows a fiduciary to request access, control, or a copy of the digital 
asset.  The term "control" means only the ability to move (unless prohibited by copyright 
law) or delete that particular asset.  A fiduciary's control over a digital asset is not 
equivalent to a transfer of ownership or a laundering of illegally obtained material.  Thus, 
this subsection grants the fiduciary the ability to access electronic records, and the 
disposition of those records is subject to other laws.  For example, where the account 
holder has an online securities account or has a game character and in-game property 
associated with an online game, then the fiduciary's ability to sell the securities, the game 
character, or the in-game property is controlled by traditional probate law.  The act is 
only granting access and "control" in the sense of enabling the fiduciary to do 
electronically what the account holder could have done electronically.  Thus, if a 
terms-of-service agreement precludes online transfers, then the fiduciary is unable to 
make those transfers electronically as well. 
Example—Fiduciary control over a digital asset.  D dies with a will disposing of all 
D's assets to D's spouse, S.  E is the personal representative for D's estate.  D left a bank 
account, for which D only received online statements, and a blog. 
E as personal representative of D's estate has access to both of D's accounts and can 
request the passwords from the custodians of both accounts.  If D's agreement with the 
bank requires that transferring the underlying title to the account be done in person, 
through a hard copy signed by the account holder and the bank manager, then E must 
comply with those procedures (signing as the account holder) and cannot transfer the 
funds in the account electronically.  If the terms-of-service agreement for the blog 
permitted D to transfer the blog electronically, then E can make the transfer electronically 
as well. 
Subsection (c) establishes 60 days as the appropriate time for compliance.  This is 
true regardless of the procedure for supplying the requisite trust instrument.  If applicable 
law other than this act does not prohibit the custodian from complying, then the custodian 
must grant access to comply.  This provision should be read in conjunction with the 
state's power of attorney act. 
Subsection (h) allows for attorneys' fees.  As the comment to Section 709 of the 
Uniform Trust Code explains, reimbursement under this section may include attorney's 
fees and expenses incurred by the trustee in defending an action. However, a trustee is not 
ordinarily entitled to attorney's fees and expenses if it is determined that the trustee 
breached the trust. See 3A Austin W. Scott & William F. Fratcher, The Law of Trusts § 
(4th ed. 1988). 
§10-110.  Custodian immunity 
A custodian and its officers, employees and agents are immune from liability for an 
act or omission done in good faith in compliance with this Act. 
Comment 
 (Maine section 10-110 is based on the Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets 
Act section 10.) 
This section establishes that custodians are protected from liability when they act in 
accordance with the procedures of this act and in good faith.  The types of actions 
covered include disclosure as well as transfer of copies.  The critical issue in conferring 
immunity is the source of the liability.  Direct liability is not subject to immunity; indirect 
liability is subject to immunity. 
Direct liability could only arise from noncompliance with a judicial order issued 
under section 9.  Upon determination of a right of access under sections 4, 5, 6, or 7, a 
court may issue an order to grant access under section 9.  Noncompliance with that order 
would give rise to liability for contempt.  There is no immunity from this liability. 
Indirect liability could arise from granting a right of access under this act.  Access to 
a digital asset might invade the privacy or the harm the reputation of the decedent, 
protected person, principal, or settlor, it might harm the family or business of the 
decedent, protected person, principal, or settlor, and it might harm other persons.  The 
grantor of access to the digital asset is immune from liability arising out of any of these 
circumstances if the grantor acted in good faith to comply with this act.  If there is a 
judicial order under section 9, compliance with the order establishes good faith.  Absent a 
judicial order under section 9, good faith must be established by the grantor's assessment 
of the requirements of this act. 
§10-111.  Uniformity of application and construction 
In applying and construing this uniform Act, consideration must be given to the need 
to promote uniformity of the law with respect to its subject matter among states that enact 
it. 
§10-112.  Relation to Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act 
This Act modifies, limits or supersedes the Electronic Signatures in Global and 
National Commerce Act, 15 United States Code, Section 7001 et seq., but does not 
modify, limit or supersede Section 101(c) of that Act, 15 United States Code, Section 
7001(c), or authorize electronic delivery of any of the notices described in Section 103(b) 
of that Act, 15 United States Code, Section 7003(b). 
PART B 
Sec. B-1.  18-A MRSA §5-931, sub-§(a), ¶¶(7) and (8), as enacted by PL 
2009, c. 292, §2 and affected by §6, are amended to read: 
(7).  Exercise fiduciary powers that the principal has authority to delegate; or 
(8).  Disclaim property, including a power of appointment.; or 
Sec. B-2.  18-A MRSA §5-931, sub-§(a), ¶(9) is enacted to read: 
(9).  Exercise authority over the content of an electronic communication of the 
principal in accordance with the Maine Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets 
Act. 
PART C 
Sec. C-1.  Effective date.  This Act takes effect January 1, 2016. 
SUMMARY 
This bill enacts the Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act as the Maine 
Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act as a new Article 10 in the Maine Revised 
Statutes, Title 18-A.  The Probate and Trust Law Advisory Commission recommended 
enactment in the report submitted to the Joint Standing Committee on Judiciary pursuant 
to Resolve 2013, chapter 27 as amended by Resolve 2013, chapter 81. 
The Prefatory Note and accompanying Comments to the Uniform Fiduciary Access 
to Digital Assets Act provide a summary and explanation of the Uniform Fiduciary 
Access to Digital Assets Act.  The Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act 
provides an important update for the Internet age.  A generation ago, files were stored in 
cabinets, photos were stored in albums and mail was delivered by a human being.  Today, 
people are more likely to use the Internet to communicate and store information.  The 
Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act ensures account holders retain control of 
their digital property and can plan for its ultimate disposition after their death.  Unless the 
account holder instructs otherwise, legally appointed fiduciaries will have the same 
access to digital assets as they have always had to tangible assets and the same duty to 
comply with the account holder's instructions. 
This bill modifies the Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act to be 
consistent with existing Maine law with regard to conservators.  Part B amends Maine's 
Uniform Power of Attorney Act to specifically allow a power of attorney to grant 
authority to enable the agent to access the content of an electronic communication to be 
consistent with the grant of express authority required by Section 6 of the Uniform 
Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act, included in this bill as the Maine Revised 
Statutes, Title 18-A, section 10-106. 
Part C provides that this bill takes effect January 1, 2016.