1. Concept of “Virtual Property” in the Metaverse

In the metaverse, “virtual property” generally includes:

• Virtual land (e.g., parcels in blockchain-based worlds)
• NFTs (avatars, wearables, digital art)
• In-game assets (weapons, skins, characters)
• Crypto-based assets linked to virtual platforms
• Accounts and licenses on metaverse platforms

Under German law, these are not treated as “imaginary property,” but as legally relevant digital assets that can form part of an estate.

2. Core Principle in Germany: Universal Succession (§ 1922 BGB)

German inheritance law is based on universal succession:

At death, the entire estate automatically transfers to heirs.

This includes:

• Tangible property (houses, cars)
• Financial assets (bank accounts)
• Digital assets (including metaverse property)

German courts and legal doctrine confirm that digital assets are not a special category excluded from inheritance.

3. Key Legal Classification of Virtual Property

In Germany, metaverse assets are usually classified as:

(A) Contractual Rights

Most metaverse assets are based on:

• Platform Terms of Service
• User license agreements

These contractual relationships are inheritable unless strictly personal.

(B) Property-like Rights (NFTs / Tokens)

NFTs and blockchain assets are increasingly treated as:

• “Other transferable assets”
• Economically valuable digital property

(C) Data + Access Rights

Includes:

• Wallet keys
• Accounts
• Stored digital content

4. Major German Legal Position on Digital & Virtual Assets

German law does not yet have a separate “Metaverse Act”, but applies:

• Civil Code (BGB)
• Contract law principles
• Property-like treatment of crypto assets in doctrine

German scholarship increasingly supports that NFTs and metaverse assets are “digital property” with transferable value, especially when linked to blockchain ownership systems.

5. Case Law in Germany (Relevant to Virtual Property Inheritance)

Although there are few cases directly mentioning “metaverse,” German courts have developed a strong foundation through digital inheritance jurisprudence.

Below are key case laws applied by analogy to virtual property inheritance:

Case 1: Facebook Digital Inheritance Case (BGH III ZR 183/17, 2018)

Principle:

Digital accounts are fully inheritable.

Holding:

• Facebook account passes to heirs under § 1922 BGB
• Includes private messages and communications
• No exception for “personal data” or privacy

Importance for Metaverse:

➡️ Metaverse accounts (like avatars or profiles) are also inheritable.

📌 Court confirmed digital equals analog inheritance.

Case 2: KG Berlin Appeal Decision (21 U 9/16, 2017)

Principle:

First appeal stage before BGH ruling.

Holding:

• Initially denied access due to privacy concerns
• Focused on data protection arguments

Importance:

➡️ Shows conflict between:

• Privacy law (GDPR-style reasoning)
• Inheritance law (succession principle)

Eventually overridden by BGH.

Case 3: LG Berlin Trial Judgment (20 O 172/15, 2015)

Principle:

Digital account treated like personal correspondence.

Holding:

• Parents granted access to deceased child’s account
• Digital communication equated with letters and diaries

Importance:

➡️ Virtual property and metaverse chats = inheritable “digital correspondence.”

Case 4: BGH Order on Execution of Digital Access (III ZB 30/20, 2020)

Principle:

Heirs must receive full functional access.

Holding:

• Not only data, but full account usability
• Heirs can navigate account as original user

Importance:

➡️ Strong analogy for metaverse:
Heirs could operate:

• Virtual land
• Avatars
• Inventory systems

Case 5: BGH General Digital Estate Principle (Derived from III ZR 183/17 reasoning)

Principle:

No distinction between digital and physical estate.

Holding:

• Analog + digital assets treated equally
• Terms of service cannot override inheritance law

Importance:

➡️ Metaverse platforms cannot exclude inheritance via standard clauses.

Case 6: Crypto Asset Recognition Principle (German Civil Courts + Doctrine)

While not a single Supreme Court case, German courts and doctrine consistently treat crypto-assets as property-like objects in civil disputes.

Principle:

Crypto-assets are legally protectable economic goods.

Importance:

➡️ NFTs and metaverse land:

• Can be inherited
• Can be transferred
• Can be subject to claims (ownership disputes, trusts)

This aligns with broader European legal reasoning that virtual assets can form enforceable property interests.

6. How Virtual Property Inheritance Works in German Metaverse Context

Step 1: Identification of Assets

Heirs must identify:

• Wallets (MetaMask, etc.)
• NFTs
• In-game property
• Platform accounts

Step 2: Legal Succession

Under § 1922 BGB:

• All digital property transfers automatically

Step 3: Platform Cooperation

Platforms must comply unless:

• Contract strictly personal (rare)
• Technical impossibility proven

Step 4: Transfer or Control

Heirs may:

• Transfer NFTs
• Control virtual land
• Sell or hold assets

7. Legal Challenges in Metaverse Inheritance (Germany)

1. Private Keys Problem

If keys are lost → asset becomes practically inaccessible.

2. Platform Restrictions

Some metaverse platforms:

• Freeze accounts
• Use “non-transferable license models”

These may conflict with German inheritance law.

3. Cross-border jurisdiction

Metaverse assets often involve:

• US companies
• Blockchain decentralization

Conflict of laws applies.

8. Final Legal Conclusion

In Germany, virtual property in the metaverse is generally inheritable, based on:

• § 1922 BGB universal succession
• BGH digital inheritance rulings
• Recognition of crypto/NFT assets as transferable economic rights

Core Legal Rule:

If a digital/metaverse asset has economic or contractual value, it becomes part of the estate and passes to heirs automatically.