Child influencer laws are gathering steam, but they don’t address the real problem
California recently passed new legislation to protect children featured in their influencer parents’ social media posts. Though this will be the second state to tackle the issue of children being exploited for social media clicks, the new laws fail to address the real problem—the right to privacy.
With the rise of “mommy bloggers” and influencers in the family and lifestyle sector, concern has grown for the children featured in their parents’ monetized social media posts. Parent influencers can potentially make thousands of dollars per post while sharing intimate details of their family life. While promoting companies and products for profit, it’s not unusual for influencer parents to regularly feature their children in social media posts.
But content regarding things like potty training, first periods, and bullying might not be something these kids want on the internet forever. Babies, toddlers, and even older children cannot reasonably consent to such private moments being shared online.
California and Illinois pass child influencer laws
In August 2023, Illinois was the first state to pass legislation to protect child influencers, though only for children under 16. The new law, an expansion of an existing child labor law, went into effect in July 2024 and provides a framework requiring influencer parents to compensate their children appearing in monetized social media posts. Influencer parents must reserve 50% of what they earn from content featuring their children, based on how much content their children appear in. For instance, a child appearing in 100% of a monetized post is entitled to 50% of the earnings, while a child appearing in 50% would receive 25% of those earnings.
The more recent California legislation just signed into law on September 26 also dictates financial protections for child influencers. However, it’s more vague than the Illinois law. Going into effect next year, parent influencers in California will be required to place gross earnings from content featuring their children under 18 years old in a trust. The earnings are to be distributed based on how often the children appeared in monetized content that generated at least 10 cents per view.
The California law doesn’t specify what percentage of the earnings children are entitled to, but a previous law—known as Coogan’s Law—dictates child performers must have at least 15% of their total earnings deposited in a trust until they turn 18.
It’s encouraging to see Coogan’s Law get an update for the social media era. It also feels like progress to see this legislation passed in multiple states. Since the rise of influencers, there’s been significant concern for the kids whose childhoods are being monetized. Finally getting political attention on the issue is certainly a step forward. These laws only protect children’s financial interests to a certain extent, however.
Industry averages don’t leave child influencers with much
Some might consider a trust fund a fair trade for violating a child’s privacy for clicks (they’re wrong). But even so, the influencer marketing industry is changing, and even children receiving compensation won’t earn anything significant.
There are several tiers of influencers, depending on how many followers they have. The higher the tier, the more money influencers can expect to make per post. Most influencers fall into one of the lower tiers, and the vast majority aren’t bringing in much cash. According to recent reports, only 15% of the surveyed influencers made over $100,000 per year, while 48% reported earning less than $15,000.
If you’re influencing as a side hustle rather than a primary source of income, $15,000 extra each year is a decent boost. But for child influencers entitled to just a percentage of those earnings, it’s not nearly enough to justify such an invasion of privacy.
Under California law, parents only need to set aside 15% of earnings generated from the content their children appear in. For an influencer making $15,000 a year, 15% amounts to $2,250 per year. So, a child featured in their parents’ content for 18 years would net $40,500 total, not factoring in taxes or interest. That wouldn’t even cover one year of tuition at many private universities.
Even in states with child influencer laws on the books, the compensation kids receive is pretty minimal. Although those earnings would build up over several years, the income received on a per-year basis seems ridiculously low. Influencer children sometimes have their entire childhoods put on display—the good, the bad, and the embarrassing—without having much say in the matter.
The new child influencer laws in Illinois and California are certainly a step in the right direction, and more states should consider enacting similar legislation. However, there’s far more at risk for child influencers than just money, and their right to privacy deserves equal protection.
Child influencer laws protect income, but not privacy
Obviously, it’s important that parents who profit from incorporating their children in their social media content set aside earnings for the kids making them so much money. But there’s more at stake than income. It’s not uncommon for social media influencers to eschew privacy, especially their children’s privacy. Some influencers don’t hesitate to display their children on social media from literally the day they’re born, making you wonder about their opinions on consent.
Many children don’t understand the permanence of the internet and can’t fathom what it means to appear in their parents’ posts, visible to potentially millions of eyes. Young children also don’t know how footage of their intimate moments will impact them as they grow older. Can you imagine being a teenager whose parents shared your potty training journey for all the world to see? There’s no way for a child to provide truly informed consent. Some can’t even walk, let alone weigh the pros and cons of monetizing their childhoods. Something needs to be done about that, too.
This is an opinion piece. The views expressed in this article are those of just the author.
