The Urgent Need for Child Influencer Autonomy
What happens when a child becomes the face of a million-dollar social media account before they are old enough to drive, vote, or understand a contract? Across platforms such as YouTube, TikTok, and Instagram, thousands of children appear in monetized content that generates substantial income for their families. Some children are featured in daily vlogs, sponsorships, product reviews, and family-centered content that attracts millions of viewers globally. Yet despite serving as the primary attraction of these accounts, many child influencers have little control over the content posted about them and no guaranteed ownership of the profits their image generates. This phenomenon creates a critical tension between parental discretion and the individual rights of the minor. Globally, a “child influencer” is defined as a minor featured in monetized content, typically characterized by an absence of formal labor contracts or the trust protections traditionally associated with the entertainment industry. The current state-level legislative patchwork is a necessary but insufficient start, and New Jersey must transition toward a comprehensive framework that mandates platform-level oversight and recognizes the child’s absolute ownership of their digital identity.
Over the last decade, social media has transformed ordinary families into online businesses. Family vloggers document everyday life, posting videos about vacations, birthdays, school activities, and personal milestones. Many of these channels generate income through sponsorships and merchandise sales. In numerous cases, children become the central attraction for viewers. Their personalities and reactions drive engagement and increase profitability. Unlike traditional child actors, however, child influencers work without formal contracts. Existing child labor laws were created with television and film in mind. Consequently, many social media platforms have fallen outside regulatory frameworks. Parents operate as managers and guardians simultaneously, creating potential conflicts of interest where a parent may prioritize revenue over a child’s privacy or well-being.
Another major concern involves privacy. Child influencers have intimate details of their lives shared with millions of strangers. Videos document medical appointments, emotional breakdowns, incidents, or embarrassing childhood moments. Unlike adults, children cannot meaningfully consent to the long-term consequences of creating a permanent digital footprint. Once content is uploaded, it remains accessible indefinitely, affecting future professional and personal opportunities. Critics argue that many children featured in family content are effectively unable to choose whether their lives become public entertainment. The issue extends beyond compensation and privacy. Some successful influencer brands are built entirely upon a child’s image and reputation. Without the child, the account loses its audience and commercial value. Yet current law generally treats parents as the owners of the accounts and business entities associated with the brand, creating legal uncertainty regarding whether children should possess ownership rights in businesses created primarily through their labor.
The legal framework protecting child performers originates from the “Coogan Law.” Enacted after child actor Jackie Coogan discovered that much of his earnings had been spent by his parents, the law requires a percentage of a child performer’s earnings to be placed into a protected trust account. For many years, child influencers remained outside these protections, as they were not classified as performers. This gap prompted Illinois to lead the charge with the passage of SB 1782 (the Child Labor Law amendment), which took effect in 2023. This statute defined a “vlogger” and required that if a minor is featured in at least 30% of compensated content over 30 days, a percentage of the gross earnings must be held in a trust for the minor. California followed suit in 2024 with the Child Content Creator Rights Act (SB 764), which expanded the definition of entertainment work to include digital content creation and mandated that vloggers set aside a proportionate share of earnings into a trust account once specific viewership and compensation thresholds are met.
While Illinois SB 1782 and California SB 764 represent monumental progress in securing a child’s financial future, they remain reactive. They address the theft of income, but they do not solve the theft of identity. Currently moving through the California legislature is SB 1247, which would grant adult influencers a “digital right to erasure,” allowing them to request the permanent deletion or editing of content featuring them as minors. This was passed in response to Ruby Franke from 8 Passengers’ arrest for child abuse and neglect. Her case acted as a wake-up call that brought the dangers of family vlogging into the mainstream. It forced lawmakers to confront the reality that channels or accounts could be used as a platform for exploitation. Compensation is not restoration for a childhood spent in front of a lens; True autonomy requires the ability to reclaim one’s private life from the public record.
While these state-level statutes are commendable, the ultimate responsibility should lie within the social media platforms themselves. It is crucial to evolve past the employment framework of the Coogan era and shift the burden to the entities providing the infrastructure for this labor. Platforms like YouTube, TikTok, and Instagram should be legally required to implement automated content-recognition systems that trigger mandatory trust-fund contributions at the point of payout. By forcing the platforms to hold earnings until the minor reaches the age of majority, the risk of parental financial mismanagement is nullified. A kid’s childhood is not an asset to be liquidated for familial gain; It deserves absolute ownership by the subject, not the guardian. The law must move toward a future where the digital footprint of a child is treated with the same sanctity as any other personal asset, and the “brand” is recognized as the property of the child themselves.
The exploitation of child influencers is a significant failure of modern labor and family law. Through the examination of statutes like the Illinois SB 1782 and the California SB 764, it is clear that the status quo is changing, yet we remain in a state of digital dispossession. To truly ensure the rights of child influencers, we must move beyond the current reliance on parental compliance and toward a systemic, platform-based mandate that treats a child’s digital footprint as their own property. It is time to treat the family vloggers with the same rigorous regulatory standard as child actors, ensuring that when the camera stops rolling, the child is left with their identity and their earnings fully intact.
Bibliography
California State Senator Steve Padilla. “‘Right to Delete’ Legislation for Social Media Child Performers Legislation Passes Senate Floor,” May 20, 2026. https://sd18.senate.ca.gov/news/right-delete-legislation-social-media-child-performers-legislation-passes-senate-floor.
Chandrasekar, Sanjana. “The Evolution of Coogan’s Law and the Child Content Creator Rights Act.” Music Business Journal, April 18, 2025. https://www.thembj.org/2025/04/the-evolution-of-coogans-law-and-the-child-content-creator-rights-act/.
Fisher Phillips. “Groundbreaking Illinois Law Protects Child Influencers from Financial Exploitation: How Could It Impact Your Business?” Fisher Phillips LLP, 2024. https://www.fisherphillips.com/en/insights/insights/groundbreaking-illinois-law-protects-child-influencers-from-financial-exploitation.
Morgan Stanley. “Protecting Your Child’s Earnings,” n.d. https://www.morganstanley.com/articles/trust-account-for-child-performer.
Prager, David, April Hua, and Adriana Levandowski. “Whose Money Is It? How Coogan’s Law and the Child Content Creator Rights Act Affect Young Creators | Nixon Peabody LLP.” Nixon Peabody LLP, 2024. https://www.nixonpeabody.com/insights/alerts/2024/12/04/how-coogans-law-and-the-child-content-creator-rights-act-affect-young-creators.