On the Issue of the (in)Efficiency of the Modern approach to regulating relations regarding Digital assets for Protection of their Holders’ rights.

Nekit Kateryna

Author information
ORCID ID https://orcid.org/0000‐0002‐3540‐350X

Keywords: digital assets, user agreement, Terms of Service, license agreement, EULA, rights protection, digital property, Digital Markets Act, Digital Services Act.

Download PDF
Обкладинка. 4-й випуск

Abstract

The amount and value of new digital objects appearing due to the ongoing development of information technologies and covered by the concept «digital assets» is growing at an impressive rate. More and more people are becoming holders of certain digital assets that have monetary value. However, the lack of a clear mechanism for regulating relations regarding digital asset leaves their holders vulnerable because their rights have little or no protection. Therefore, the purpose of this article is to analyze current approaches to the regulation of the rights of digital asset owners based on user and license agreements and case law in this area, as well as to identify the (in)effectiveness of the protection of rights to digital assets, and to determine the prospects for changes in this area. The following methods of scientific research are used in the work: dogmatic method; comparative method; method of legal and doctrinal analysis.

Currently, relations with digital assets are regulated by Terms of Service or EULA agreements. However, this approach has shown its ineffectiveness in protecting users’ rights. This article reveals why modern mechanisms for regulating relations regarding digital assets are imperfect for protecting their holders’ rights. Some data that indicates the opacity and complexity of user agreements is provided. Case law on protection of users’ rights to digital assets based on user agreements is analyzed. The case law analysis reveals that there is a recent tendency for courts to grant a greater degree of protection to users, despite the Terms of Service, even though the latter are most often understood as contracts that bind the parties and should be applied preferentially to the law. However, courts are limiting the unreasonably wide powers of developers in favor of users. The emerging situation shows the need to establish certain restrictions for developers at the legislative level, in order to protect users as a weaker party. The first step in this direction can be considered the latest European regulatory acts, such as Digital Markets Act and Digital Services Act. This paper analyzes the provisions of the aforementioned acts related to the new requirements for Terms of Service aimed at ensuring a balance between the rights of users and providers. The article also pays attention to the issues that arise due to the provisions of license agreements (EULA) regarding digital assets. In general, the conclusion is made that there is a need to change current approach to regulation of relations regarding digital assets. To ensure more efficient protection of the digital assets’ holders, the provisions of ownership should be applied to the relations regarding digital assets.

How to Cite

In accordance with DSTU 8302:2015:
Некіт К. До питання про (не)ефективність сучасного підходу до врегулювання відносин щодо цифрових. Цивілістична платформа. 2025. № 1 (4). С. 60-71. https://doi.org/10.69724/2786-8834-2025-4-1-60-71

According to the international style of APA:
Nekit, K. (2025) on the Issue of the (in)Efficiency of the Modern approach to regulating relations regarding Digital assets for Protection of their Holders’ rights. С. P. Journal, 1 (4). https://doi.org/10.69724/2786-8834-2025-4-1-60-71 [in Ukrainian].

References

  1. A helpful overview of all your digital property and digital assets. (2023). Everplans. https://www.everplans.com/articles/a-helpful-overview-of-all-your-digital-property- and-digital-assets [in English].
  2. Ajemian v. Yahoo!, Inc. (2017). 84 N. E.3d 766 (U. S. Mar. 26, 2018), No. 17–1005, 2018 WL 489291. ’Facebook Ruling: German Court Grants Parents Rights to Dead Daughter’s Account’ (BBC News, 12 July 2018) https://www.bbc.com/news/world- europe-44804599 [in English].
  3. Bakos, Y., Marotta-Wurgler, F., & Trossen, D. (2014). Does anyone read the fine print? Consumer attention to standard form contracts. The Journal of Legal Studies, 43(1). https://doi.org/10.1086/674424 [in English].
  4. Banta, N. (2014). Inherit the cloud: The role of private contracts in distributing or deleting digital assets at death. Fordham Law Review, 83, 799–854. https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol83/iss2/16/ [in English].
  5. Belli, L., & Venturini, J. (2016). Private ordering and the rise of terms of service as cybe r-regulation. Internet Policy Review, 5(4). https://doi.org/10.14763/2016.4.441 [in English].
  6. Bragg v. Linden Research, Inc. (2007). U. S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 487 F. Supp. 2d 593. https://madisonian.net/downloads/contracts/ bragg.pdf [in English].
  7. Cornelius, K. (2018). Standard form contracts and a smart contract future. Internet Policy Review, 7(2). https://doi.org/10.14763/2018.2.790 [in English].
  8. Edwards, L., & Harbinja, E. (2013, February 21). What happens to my Facebook profile when I die? Legal issues around transmission of digital assets on death. SSRN. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2222163 [in English].
  9. European Commission. (2022). The Digital Services Act Package. Shaping Europe’s digital future. https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/digital-services-act- package [in English].
  10. European Parliament and Council (2022, October 19) Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 on a Single Market For Digital Services and amending Directive 2000/31/EC (Digital Services Act) OJ L 277/1. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2022/2065/ oj/eng [in English].
  11. European Parliament and Council (2022, September 14) Regulation (EU) 2022/1925 on contestable and fair markets in the digital sector and amending Directives (EU) 2019/1937 and (EU) 2020/1828 (Digital Markets Act) OJ L 265/1 https:// eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2022/1925/oj/eng [in English].
  12. Facebook ruling: German court grants parents rights to dead daughter’s account. (2018, July 12). BBC News. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-44804599 [in English].
  13. Fairfield, J. (2022). Tokenized: The law of non-fungible tokens and unique digital property. Indiana Law Journal, 97(4), 1261–1313. https:// www.repository.law.indiana.edu/ilj/vol97/iss4/4 [in English].
  14. Glushko, B. (2007). Note. Tales of the (virtual) city: Governing property disputes in virtual worlds. Berkeley Technology and Law Journal, 22, 507–528. https:// ssrn.com/abstract=1458547 [in English].
  15. How valuable are your digital assets? (2023). Roche Legal. https://www.rochelegal.co.uk/ news/how-valuable-are-your-digital-assets/ [in English].
  16. Jordan, L. (2011). Protections for virtual property: A modern restitutionary approach. Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Review, 32(1), 1–29. https:// digitalcommons.lmu.edu/elr/vol32/iss1/1/ [in English].
  17. Knight, W. (2003, December 23). Gamer wins back virtual booty in court battle. New Scientist. https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4510-gamer-wins-back-virtual- booty-in-court-battle/ [in English].
  18. Lim, H. Y. F. (2009). Who monitors the monitor? Virtual world governance and the failure of contract law remedies in virtual worlds. Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment & Technology Law, 11, 1053–1073. https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1342&context=jetlaw [in English].
  19. Ludwig, J. (2011). Protections for virtual property: A modern restitutionary approach. Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Review, 32(1), 1–29. https://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/elr/vol32/iss1/1 [in English].
  20. Moringiello, J., & Reynolds, W. (2007). Survey of the law of cyberspace: Electronic contracting cases 2006–2007. The Business Lawyer, 63(1), 1–37. https:// www.researchgate.net/publication/30467479_Survey_of_the_Law_of_Cyberspace_ Electronic_Contracting_Cases_2007–2008 [in English].
  21. Nekit, K. (2023). Legal nature and types of digital assets in the activities of technology- oriented startups. Tribuna Juridica, 13(2), https://doi.org/10.24818/ TBJ/2023/13/2.08 [in English].
  22. Nekit, K. (2024). Digital ownership as a reflection of the Rule of Law. In R. Argren (Ed.), Rule of Law in a transitional spectrum (pp. 405–439). Iustus. https:// www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1836705/FULLTEXT01.pdf [in English].
  23. Obar, J., & Oeldorf-Hirsch, A. (2020). The biggest lie on the internet: Ignoring the privacy policies and terms of service policies of social networking services. Information Communication and Society, 23(1), 1–20. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/ papers.cfm?abstract_id=2757465. [in English].
  24. Palka, P. (2017). Virtual property: Towards a general theory. [PhD Thesis, European University Institute]. https://doi.org/10.2870/700083 [in English].
  25. Perzanowski, A., & Schultz, J. (2016). The end of ownership: Personal property in the digital economy. MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/10524.001.0001 [in English].
  26. Reis, S. (2015). Towards a «digital transfer doctrine»? The first sale doctrine in the digital era. Northwestern University Law Review, 109, 173–207. https:// scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1193&conte xt=nulr[in English].
  27. Sauro, J. (2011, March 29). Do users read license agreements? MeasuringU. https:// measuringu.com/eula/[in English].