The first legislature of the world which has found our issue to be something worth to take care of was the legal system of the USA. (Of course, I didn’t have a choice to check all the legal systems of the world, so I would receive happily any contradictions in the comments.) It is an interesting question why the USA was the first in this topic. Altought the answer is not as difficult as it seems: all the huge, multinational service providers (Facebook, Google, Yahoo, etc.) are established in America, and – maybe bacause of this fact – using the services of these companies is significantly common among the citizens of the USA.
As far as I know, the first state of all was Connecticut in January, 2013 where written acts have been created about the problem of online data which belongs to people who have already passed away [https://www.cga.ct.gov/current/pub/chap_802b.htm#sec_45a-334a]. This act gave the power for the personal representative of the deceased person to access or copy the content of the person’s electronic mail account. The enactment of this act was a historical moment, it is clear.
The second state was Rhode Island [ http://webserver.rilin.state.ri.us/Statutes/TITLE33/33-27/INDEX.HTM ], where an act have been enacted word-by-word the same as in Connecticut.
The third state was Indiana in the line [http://iga.in.gov/legislative/laws/2016/ic/titles/029/]. This act was really similar to the one from Connecticut and Rhode Island, but used a better terminology by citing „electronically stored information and documents” instead of talking about only the e-mail account.
Then came Oklahoma [http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=460302] where they tried to find the golden mean between the too specific form used by Connecticut and Idaho and the too general used by Indiana. They put in the focus of their act the following group of data: e–mail account, social networking account, microblogging account, or short messaging service Web site.
In Idaho [https://legislature.idaho.gov/idstat/Title15/T15CH3SECT15-3-715.htm] we can find the same rules which grant the right for the personal representative of a deceased person’s estate to take control of, conduct, continue, or terminate a deceased person’s e–mail account, social networking account, microblogging account, or short messaging service Web site.
State of Nevada’s attitude was more conservative [https://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-143.html]. They only gave the right only to terminate the deceased person’s accounts for the personal representative.
In Virginia [ http://law.justia.com/codes/virginia/2014/title-64.2/section-64.2-110/ ], only the personal representative of the deceased minor (person under 21) got right to access the minors online accounts.
Finally, Delaware enacted a much detailed law based on UFADAA. What is UFADAA? This will be the topic of a following post, so we should stop here.
If we would like to evaluate the initial acts enacted by these states, we can appreciate the efforts and the braveness of creating laws about the online data after death for the first time, but we have to state: these acts by themselves rule only a small part of the big issue, so they are not able to grant a satisfactory solution to the problem.