Monetising Memory: When Identities become Assets

BY Nethra Venkatraman / November 15, 2025
DESIGNED BY Anuya Shindolkar

From memories to monetised shelves: How our lived experiences, digital footprints and identities are transformed into commodities in an economy driven by data-hungry platforms, curated personalities, and algorithmic control.

The modern pursuit of rest is paradoxically mediated by technology; patterns of leisure in the digital age reveal a growing inability to detach from technology. The 21st century is believed to be the ‘Digital Age’. Unlike other transient cultural phenomena that have emerged and faded, this era is unique in the way that it has rewired our collective perception. It is widely acknowledged that contemporary society is deeply dependent on smartphones and digital platforms such as WhatsApp, Facebook, Instagram, X (formerly Twitter), Youtube, Google or the countless websites on the internet. Users routinely engage in repetitive online behaviors – scrolling, liking, purchasing often with limited awareness of the broader implications of these actions. Every search made, every reel watched, every product browsed through, contribute to an ever growing digital trail.

Legacy in the Digital Era

An unspoken reality of the Digital Age is that for every internet user, an invisible data set quietly expands in the background, mapping their habits, preferences, and choices. This raises an uncomfortable yet inevitable question: what becomes of this data once its owner passes away? While the physical state of such a person may be memorialised through rituals, there is often little acknowledgement given to their digital existence which is intact, untouched and often unnoticed, yet active within the digital ecosystem.

To understand this phenomenon, it is first necessary to examine how digital platforms generate profit from user data. Companies such as Google and Facebook operate on a two-sided market model where they provide free services to users while collecting vast amounts of behavioral data:clicks, likes, locations, browsing habits. This data is used to construct detailed user profiles that enable highly targeted advertising, which remains the primary revenue stream for most digital media platforms. For instance, Facebook’s Average Revenue per User (ARPU)¹ in North America exceeded USD 68 in the fourth quarter of 2023, reflecting the platform’s ability to monetise user engagement through data-driven sales (Statista, 2023).

¹ Average revenue per unit (ARPU) is an indicator of the profitability of a product based on the amount of money that's generated from each of its users or subscribers. It's a particularly useful measurement for companies in the telecommunications and media industries that rely on subscribers or users.

To illustrate how the dead continue to participate in the digital economy, we can take the example of Michael Jackson. Through streaming royalties, licensing agreements and the ongoing commercial use of his music, he was declared the highest paid deceased celebrity of 2024, earning approximately $600 million (Forbes, 2024). Each view, post, like and share contributes to a continuously expanding dataset that sustains his digital afterlife.

A more contemporary example is that of Whitney Houston – an American singer, actress, producer and philanthropist. Her estate launched ‘An evening with Whitney’, a global concert introduced in 2020. Remarkably, the production completed 54 shows across various international venues, a decade after her passing in 2012. This concert featured a digitally constructed 3D version of Whitney Houston performing alongside live background dancers and musicians. The production used a combination of CGI, AI and body doubles to simulate her stage presence. As a commercial venture, the tour generated substantial revenue through ticket sales, merchandise, and licensing, demonstrating how digital resurrection can be both technologically innovative and economically lucrative.

Illustrated: Davide Bonazzi via Pinterest

A large part of the digital world remains unexplored, giving rise to a series of unresolved questions about what has come to be known as the ‘Digital Afterlife’. The digital resurrection of individuals challenges traditional notions of autonomy and exposes substantial regulatory gaps in need of reform. From an ethical standpoint, the principle of consent is frequently disregarded when using one’s data as a commodity that can be earned from. The questions of who shapes narratives and controls the data of a person after their death complicate our understanding of data ownership.

The dilemma is further intensified by the lack of legal and regulatory oversight around data inheritance, storage, repurposing and monetisation.. A key reason for this inaction is the persistent underestimation of data’s economic and strategic value. User data drives engagement, influences algorithms, fuels machine learning models and even shapes targeted content, all of which create new methods of earning profits for corporations. In the absence of accountability or governance, this approach to posthumous data is likely to persist, ensuring that a person’s digital identity outlives them not as a memorial or tribute, but as an enduring commercial asset capable of generating revenue long after death. Together, these developments have produced a rapidly expanding ecosystem known as the Digital Afterlife Industry – a domain where digital resurrection has moved from speculation to a tangible, commercialised practice actively engineered and marketed. The beneficiaries of this industry range from technology firms specialising in artificial intelligence, holography, and virtual reality to record labels, estate managers, and streaming platforms. These entities claim ownership over aspects of a person’s digital footprint, capitalising on their continuous replication and visibility.

The Digital Afterlife Industry – a domain where digital resurrection has moved from speculation to a tangible, commercialised practice actively engineered and marketed.

While Whitney Houston’s holographic concert sought to celebrate her legacy as a global icon, the technologies that enabled it are becoming increasingly accessible, signalling a broader shift toward digital afterlives as a social and economic norm. In response, intellectual property regimes have begun to adapt, extending property rights into the realm of digital identity. Digital likeness comprising replicable traits such as voice, face, gestures, and personality has emerged as a distinct form of intangible asset. These components, now digitally cloneable, are licensed for usage in holograms, AI-generated appearances, advertisements. Consequently, these digital identities are treated like creative commodities, subject to ownership, exchange, and monetisation according to corporate or estate interests.

The use of these new-age digital tools appear most visible in the case of global icons and public figures; however, the digital traces left behind by everyday users are equally embedded within the profit-driven digital ecosystem. While their individual data may not command equal monetary value as public figures, its collective scale constitutes a significant resource for platforms seeking to sustain and expand their revenue models. The value of data, moreover, is not determined solely by its volume but also by its emotional resonance and the perceived authenticity of the individual it represents. Platforms exploit these affective dimensions through nostalgia-driven features such as memory reminders and commemorative posts, which invite renewed engagement with archived content.

Illustrated: Unknown, via Pinterest

This dynamic becomes particularly apparent in Facebook’s memorialisation feature, which allows the profiles of deceased users to remain active under the management of a designated Legacy Contact. Research suggests that by the year 2100, Facebook will host more profiles of deceased individuals than living users (Oxford Internet Institute, 2019). While, these ‘Memorial Accounts’ managed by a designated ‘Legacy Contact’ are not directly monetisable under the current Facebook policy, they continue to generate user activity through comments, reactions, and shares that sustains platform engagement and strengthens Facebook’s advertising and data-driven revenue models (Navon & Noy, 2022). As memorial accounts increasingly outnumber active ones, it is plausible that Facebook and similar platforms may seek to formalise or monetise these digital legacies, extending new forms of ownership and participation to legacy holders and followers alike.

Grief Technology Industries

A recent development in the data industry known as Grief Tech, involves technologies designed to replicate deceased individuals’ speech, behavior, and personality traits. These digital entities are often powered by artificial intelligence, and are trained on data such as text messages, social media posts, and at times, recorded conversations of the deceased (UAB Institute for Human Rights, 2025). Common manifestations include AI avatars and posthumous chatbots, which aim to offer a continued sense of presence. Startups such as Project December and Story File are developing AI Bots to support individuals experiencing grief. However, these services are monetised, contributing to a growing market built around commodifying memories and mourning.

While the monetisation of death is not new, AI grief bots introduce an ethically contentious form of commercialisation that targets individuals at their most vulnerable. Grieving users may be drawn to costly subscriptions or pay-per-use services, raising concerns regarding the dignity of mourning and the commodification of loss (Fernandez, 2025). The commercial incentives for providers to increase engagement are clear: algorithms are designed to prolong interaction with the AI, maximizing user retention (AI Connect Network, 2024). As these interactions become increasingly personalised, griefbots risk fostering emotional dependency, potentially transforming a natural process of mourning into compulsive behavior or even a form of addiction (University of Cambridge, 2024).

Legality of the Digital Afterlife

The legal debate over posthumous data ownership is intensifying. As digital footprints continue to outlive their owners, a central question emerges: who controls this data: the bereaved family or the digital platforms? Key issues remain unresolved, including whether families can inherit, delete, or monetise a loved one’s digital traces. The absence of clear succession rights for digital assets exposes a significant gap in contemporary legal frameworks.

In India, there is currently no comprehensive legislation governing digital inheritance. The Indian Succession Act, 1925 does not account for digital assets as inheritable property and the Digital Data Protection Act (2023) introduces the idea of a ‘data fiduciary’,² allowing individuals to nominate someone to manage their data posthumously. While this permits the liability of data to be transferable, it stands short of establishing enforceable inheritance rights over digital assets. This gap has significant implications in terms of implications for posthumous privacy and informational autonomy. The lack of legislative attention reflects India’s broader tendency toward reactive rather than anticipatory legal reform, particularly in domains where public pressure and judicial activism remain limited. Consequently, corporations continue to profit from this regulatory vacuum, operating within the ambiguity of data classification and ownership.

The absence of statutory clarity also stems from the Indian state’s legislative priorities, which have historically focused on data protection, surveillance, and cybercrime rather than on digital dignity or posthumous autonomy. Moreover, the digital divide across class, caste, and geography perpetuates the misconception that digital inheritance is a “first-world” concern. Limited public awareness of digital estate planning further contributes to this neglect.

Illustrated: Patrick Chappatte via pinterest

On the other hand, the concept of a digital will is gaining traction amongst the people, its legal validity in India remains uncertain. Private institutions such as ICICI Direct, HDFC Securities, and digital platforms like WillJini, AsaanWill, and GetYellow offer estate planning services, yet these wills often lack legal enforceability. Under the Indian Succession Act (1925), a will must be written, signed, and witnessed by two individuals, while the Information Technology Act (2000) explicitly excludes wills from electronic recognition.

In contrast, several international jurisdictions have begun to address this issue. In Germany, a 2018 court ruling determined that a deceased teenager’s Facebook messages could be inherited by her parents, equating them to physical letters (BBC, 2018). In the United States, the Revised Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (RUFADAA), developed by the Uniform Law Commission in 2015, provides a structured legal pathway for fiduciaries (trustees/executors) to access and manage a deceased person’s digital assets. RUFADAA has been adopted in nearly every U.S. state and helps regulate the rights of heirs with privacy protections and platform terms of service (Nolo, 2024). These examples highlight the legislative gaps in India, where an absence of a statutory framework leaves digital legacies to be a legal grey zone, dependent on platform policies rather than enforceable privacy rights.

relating to, or involving a confidence or trust.

A digital will outlines your wishes for your online accounts, digital assets, and digital presence after your passing.

If a deceased person has not explicitly consented to the monetisation or retention of their data, can corporations or even family members justifiably make that decision on their behalf?

Illustrated: Unknown via pinterest

The boundaries of consent, accountability and inheritance in the digital afterlife are shaped by legal frameworks, without which ethical dilemmas are amplified. In the absence of such frameworks, ethical dilemmas are magnified, and platform Terms and Conditions often serve as default law. This imbalance grants disproportionate authority to technology companies, allowing them to act as arbiters of posthumous data. If a deceased person has not explicitly consented to the monetisation or retention of their data, can corporations or even family members justifiably make that decision on their behalf? Should silence be interpreted as consent, or grief as authorisation? These unresolved questions illustrate how law and ethics increasingly converge in the governance of posthumous data, reshaping not only the boundaries of privacy but also the deeply personal process of mourning in the digital age.

Economics of Mourning, Ethics of Identity

At its core, the Digital Afterlife Industry is propelled by economic imperatives. It represents a new revenue-generating sector of the global economy, where the data individuals leave behind becomes a potential asset. From grief tech startups, to licensing posthumous licensing of artists, memories are no longer purely emotional, they are increasingly marketable. The digital sphere has now evolved into a marketplace where mourning, memory and monetisation converge. Companies such as HereAfter AI, GhostMemo, Lifenaut, and Bcelebrated offer services that reconstruct interactive digital personas using data extracted from social media, emails, voice recordings, and text messages (Monash Lens, 2024). Although still peripheral to the mainstream digital economy, the industry continues to expand as its commercial potential grows.

The digital sphere has now evolved into a marketplace where mourning, memory and monetisation converge.

While monetisation itself is not inherently problematic, the commodification of identity raises profound ethical concerns. As corporations treat digital personas as intellectual property, individuality risks being reduced to a tradable asset. This prompts difficult questions: will future generations inherit algorithmically curated versions of their loved ones rather than authentic memories? And will grief evolve into a subscription-based service industry, offering algorithmic comfort in place of human connection?

Illustrated: Unknown via pinterest

Economically, the digital afterlife opens avenues for global profit but simultaneously deepens existing inequalities. Those with financial and digital literacy resources can manage and curate their posthumous presence, while others may have their identities repurposed without consent. Access to digital estate planning tools and legacy-management services remains uneven, constrained by affordability, infrastructure, and awareness (IJIP, 2024). In the absence of robust regulation, technology companies wield disproportionate control over digital remains, extracting value from them in ways that reinforce a new digital class divide where the privileged are memorialised, and the rest risk algorithmic erasure.

Ultimately, the rise of the digital afterlife compels us to confront a reality that is not merely emotional but economic and algorithmic. Unless individuals and institutions critically engage with how digital legacies are constructed, we risk allowing the worth of a life to be defined not by the way it was lived, but by the data it left behind.

Keywords

Digital Afterlife, Grief Tech, Data Monetisation, Digital Identity, Algorithmic Control, Memory Economy, Digital Will, Commodified Identity, Posthumous Data, Data Capitalism, Tech Ethics, Hologram Concerts, AI Resurrection, Digital Assets, Consent And Privacy.

References

Adepetun, T. (2025, June 16). Digital Ghosts: What We Leave Behind in an Online Afterlife. The Humanist. Digital Ghosts: What We Leave Behind in an Online Afterlife - TheHumanist.com
An Evening With Whitney: The Whitney Houston Hologram Tour. (n.d.). Whitney Houston Official Website. An Evening With Whitney: The Whitney Houston Hologram Concert
Banta, N. M. (2016). Death and privacy in the digital age. North Carolina Law Review, 94(3), 927. scholarship.law.unc.edu
BBC News. (2018, July 12). German court rules parents can inherit dead daughter’s Facebook account. Facebook ruling: German court grants parents rights to dead daughter's account
Buschkühle, H. (2023, January 20). The digital legacy – What happens with data after death?. PKF Fasselt. The digital legacy – What happens with data after death? - PKF Fasselt
CBC News. (2021, July 30). Dead celebrities are being digitally resurrected — and it's raising questions about consent. Dead celebrities are being digitally resurrected — and the ethics are murky | CBC News
Chen, X., Shaghaghi, A., Laeuchli, J., & Kanhere, S. (2025, January 9). Beyond Life: A Digital Will Solution for Posthumous Data Management. (PDF) Beyond Life: A Digital Will Solution for Posthumous Data Management
Chow, J. C. L., & Li, K. (2025). Machine-learning techniques make chatbots capable of mimicking the personalities of deceased individuals based on data collected when those people were alive. Information, 16(6), 426. https://doi.org/10.3390/info16060426
Das, M. R. (2024, June 19). The rise of Grief‑Tech: How AI companies help people cope with the death of loved ones. Firstpost. The rise of Grief-Tech: How AI companies help people cope with the death of loved ones – Firstpost
Facebook. (n.d.). Managing memorialized accounts. Facebook Help Center. Request to Memorialize or Remove an Account | Facebook Help Center
Fernandez, N. (2025, February 7). Griefbots: Blurring the Reality of Death and the Illusion of Life. UAB Institute for Human Rights Blog. Griefbots: Blurring the Reality of Death and the Illusion of Life – UAB Institute for Human Rights Blog
Greenburg, Z. O. (2012, February 15). Why Whitney Houston won’t match Michael Jackson’s postmortem earnings. Forbes. Why Whitney Houston Won't Match Michael Jackson's Postmortem Earnings (Part 1)
Jon, Q. (2024, May 9). Ethical, legal questions arise as AI ‘deadbots’ simulate deceased. TechTimes. Ethical, Legal Questions Arise as AI 'Deadbots' Simulate Deceased
Kenton, W. (2024, October 1). Average revenue per unit (ARPU): Definition and how to calculate. Investopedia. Average Revenue Per Unit (ARPU): Definition and How to Calculate
Kumari, B. S. S., Lavanya, P., & Padmambika, P. (2024). Bridging the digital divide: Addressing inequality and access disparities. International Journal of Indian Psychology, 12(3), Article 111. Bridging The Digital Divide: Addressing Inequality and Access Disparities
Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY). (2024). Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023. Government of India. THE DIGITAL PERSONAL DATA PROTECTION ACT, 2023 (NO. 22 OF 2023) An Act to provide for the processing of digital personal data in
Navon, S., & Noy, C. (2023). Like, share, and remember: Facebook memorial pages as social capital resources. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 28(1), zmac021. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcmc/zmac021
Press Information Bureau. (2015, January 28). Digital India Programme aims to transform India into digitally empowered society and knowledge economy. Government of India. Law Commission of India Submits its Report on Electoral Reforms to the Ministry of Law & Justice
Ranjan, A. (2025, February 4). Digital afterlife industry: Legal perspectives on digital will and posthumous data privacy in India. Jus Corpus. DIGITAL AFTERLIFE INDUSTRY: LEGAL PERSPECTIVES ON DIGITAL WILL AND POSTHUMOUS DATA PRIVACY IN INDIA - Jus Corpus
Supreme Court of India. (2017). Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., (2017) 10 SCC 1. Justice K.S.Puttaswamy(Retd) vs Union Of India on 26 September, 2018
Statista. (2024). Facebook: average revenue per user (ARPU) worldwide by region 2011–2023. Facebook: average revenue per user region 2023| Statista
Tech Desk. (2025, June 17). From ‘grief bots’ to 3D avatars: How startups are using AI to simulate the dead. The Indian Express. From ‘grief bots’ to 3D avatars: How startups are using AI to simulate the dead | Technology News - The Indian Express
The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica. (n.d.). Whitney Houston. In Encyclopaedia Britannica. Whitney Houston | Biography, Songs, Albums, Death, & Facts | Britannica
Uniform Law Commission. (2015). Revised Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (RUFADAA). Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act, Revised - Uniform Law Commission
University of Cambridge. (2024, May 8). Call for safeguards to prevent unwanted ‘hauntings’ by AI chatbots of dead loved ones. Call for safeguards to prevent unwanted ‘hauntings’ by AI chatbots of dead loved ones | University of Cambridge
Vantage Circle. (n.d.). Emotional resonance: Meaning, use cases & importance. Vantage Circle. Emotional Resonance : Meaning, Use Cases & Importance | Vantage Circle
Voytko‑Best, L. (2024, October 29). The highest‑paid dead celebrities of 2024. Forbes. Forbes Top-Earning Dead Celebrities 2024 List - Posthumous Success Stories
Wong, W. H. (2023, October 10). Players in the digital afterlife industry. IEEE Spectrum. The Creepy New Digital Afterlife Industry - IEEE Spectrum
Zeitchik, S. (2021, October 29). Nine years after she died, Whitney Houston is back to entertain you. The Washington Post. Nine years after she died, Whitney Houston is back to entertain you

DISCOVER MORE STORIES

unkown illustration via pinterest_edited_edited.jpg

The Asian Financial Crisis 1997: A Turning Point

NOVEMBER 09

BY AYSHA ABDULLA

Reimagining Rural Development: How Grameen Bank Transformed Bangladesh

NOVEMBER 03

BY ANNAPOORNA MARIAM FATHIMA

Military Tensions And stock Market Violatility: The Bull Maket Dilemma

OCTOBER 07

BY HARSHITA DUBEY