A grief-focused AI, often called a digital twin, can imitate a deceased person or let someone build a posthumous digital self to interact with loved ones, but this hinges on complex consent, data licensing, and contractual commitments with the service provider.

Regulators are signaling gaps and calling for stronger oversight, so readers should read terms closely since vendors may retain ownership or broad reuse rights over AI-generated data and outputs.

Ethical risks include misrepresentation, data drift as AI responses evolve, potential dependence for the bereaved, and the need for safeguards addressing privacy, consent, and accountability.

There is a call for more regulation in grief tech, with emphasis on careful consideration of data rights, privacy, and long‑term implications before creating a digital twin.

The piece notes Australia’s evolving legal framework for grief tech and invites broader discussion on privacy, consent, and ethical usage.

Australian law currently provides no general personality or publicity rights to protect identity, voice, or likeness, and copyright typically does not cover AI outputs, though training data like responses or voice samples may be protectable.

The legal landscape is unclear in many places, including Australia, due to the absence of explicit privacy or personality rights, raising questions about ownership and control of digital selves when data is licensed to AI services.

Without a general right to one’s identity in Australian law, ownership and control of posthumous data become complicated.

Overall takeaway: digital immortality is technically feasible, but its legal, ethical, and regulatory terrain remains unsettled, underscoring the need for informed consent and strong protections when creating a digital twin.