What happens if I murder someone in the metaverse: how the laws of the real world apply to the virtual

Killing someone is wrong. But is it just as serious to kill someone’s avatar in the metaverse? With the rise of virtual worlds, whatever their form, one wonders to what extent crimes in the real world have their equivalent in the virtual.

Killing, stealing, raping, threatening… are serious actions if they are carried out against a physical person that are clearly punishable, but within virtual worlds it seems that the rules change. Up to what point? Here we explain what the law says about these actions and where is the line that separates physical crimes from those committed in virtual worlds.

What are the penalties for a murder in the metaverse. In the Criminal Code, murder is detailed in the article 139 and is punishable by between 15 and 25 years in prison, but applies to the death of another person (physical). As can be anticipated, killing a person’s avatar is not punished in the same way.

Borja Adsuara, Doctor of Law and expert in Digital Strategy, explains that the current legal system is sufficient to collect all these cases. Depending on each particular case, some crime could be applied, but many cases could also be resolved through civil proceedings and request compensation for moral damages.

The crime against moral integrity can be applied. In the most extreme cases, where the death of the avatar really supposes an affectation for the person, the article 173 of the Penal Code, which regulates degrading treatment, workplace harassment, real estate harassment, unfair harassment and domestic violence and is punishable by a prison sentence of 6 months to 2 years for “acts that seriously undermine moral integrity in any area”.

With the murder or torture of an avatar, the crime of the same name cannot be applied since there is no moral physical damage as such, but according to Adsuara, a crime against moral integrity would fit in the most serious cases. In the expert’s opinion, the crime against moral integrity could be revised, since it has been applied in some cases with “ridiculous penalties”, such as that of the Iveco worker who committed suicide after the broadcast in his company of a sexual video.

An avatar is our image. Another crime that can be applied to actions with the avatars of the metaverse is the article 197, of the crime of discovery and disclosure of secrets as a violation of privacy. In this context we can interpret that an avatar is closely linked to the image of a person and that damaging that avatar also means damaging someone’s image.

You can also apply cyberbullying or Data Protection. The Criminal Code has multiple typified crimes that can be used in the event of attacks in the metaverse, such as article 183, which regulates the harassment of minors.

Another option would be to go through the Data Protection route. “The avatar is data that identifies us, regulated by the RGPD and misuse could be prosecuted,” explains Adsuara. In this case, the AEPD could impose a fine, although the collection would go to the public treasury, or the offended person could request compensation through civil channels.

If there is no “true physical sensation” there is no rape. In the case of murder, the difference between the digital and the physical world is quite clear, but if we talk about rape there are some interesting nuances to review. The crime of sexual assault is described in the articles 178 and 180 of the Penal Code. For it to exist, “there must be a contact of sexual content in which the erogenous zones are involved” and a violence that “must be physical and sufficient to obtain the desired purpose”.

That is, if there is no physical violence, it is not considered aggression. Therefore, in the metaverse an action of this nature could not be considered as such through virtual reality, despite the fact that realism could produce an equivalent devastating effect.

Adsuara reflects on a possible virtual reality system together with a device that can reproduce touch. In that case, it should be demonstrated, probably by a medical report, that a “true physical sensation” has occurred. It is here, in the certification of the appropriate professional, where certain crimes could be applied to cases related to the metaverse that may transcend the physical sphere.

Who can “kill” us easier are the owners of the metaverse. We have raised the case of a digital user attacking another, but perhaps the closest thing to “death in the metaverse” is when a company deletes our account. Let’s imagine Google deleting our account or Meta deciding that our avatar has been blocked.

We currently have no guarantee that this cannot happen. Companies can argue that we have broken their rules of use and because of this they remove us. But that can have a huge influence, from the deletion of thousands of personal photos to a very deep social impact. A “digital death” for which we are little protected.

Adsuara does not remember any case of a person who has won a lawsuit before one of the big technology companies for “killing” him digitally, but he does warn about its seriousness: “even when they detain you in the physical world, they take away certain rights, but they do not they take away your whole life. However, with this they can take away your whole digital life.”

In Xataka | Virtual cities are filled with real estate investors: more than 50 million dollars to buy houses that cannot be lived in