Lacking nationwide protections, states are stepping up to protect child influencers

Four years ago, family video bloggers Myka and James Stauffer faced significant backlash as they announced they would be “rehoming” their autistic son Huxley, about three years after they adopted him from China.

In an industry worth $250 billion and expected to jump to $480 billion by 2027, it was a jarring moment that shone a light on an exploding and unregulated sector of the economy where parents can make money off their children’s everyday lives. It also called into question how much say those child influencers — known in some quarters as “kidfluencers” — have on their privacy and the financial benefit they derive from content they star in.

Some states have stepped in, with more likely to follow. Illinois became the first to regulate the child influencer space last year with a law requiring parents to set aside a percentage of the kids’ gross earnings in a trust. If they do not, those children would be entitled to sue their parents.

Minnesota followed suit with similar legislation in May to go into effect next year, then in September, California approved a law of its own. The latter has been something of a trailblazer in protecting child stars with the 1939 Coogan Law, which has mandated for decades that 15% of a performer’s gross earnings be placed in trust. That prevents parents from misusing their children’s earnings from stage and screen work.

“In old Hollywood, child actors were exploited. In 2024, it’s now child influencers,” California Gov. Gavin Newsom said in a statement when he signed the bill.

Generally, under these types of bills, creators that feature minors in a certain percentage of their content must set aside a proportionate percentage of their gross earnings in a trust that the minor can access when they reach adulthood. In California, for example, if a minor is in 30% of content, 65% of total gross earnings must be set aside.

The Coogan Law only applies to children under contract, whereas this new law would apply across the board to children who feature in social media posts, as no contract is required for that sort of content. Having that work/life separation can be difficult for child influencers, as well as their ability to consent to being filmed and appear in online content.

Advocates also are pushing hard for greater privacy protections in child influencer regulations. Though such protections eluded them in California and Illinois, they were successful in Minnesota. In that legislation, a minor aged 13 or older or an adult who was under 18 when their likeness appears in the content can request to have it deleted.

Chris McCarty, the executive director and founder of Quit Clicking Kids, a nonprofit that has advocated for child influencer protections, said the right to privacy is of particular interest given that stars’ digital footprint could include all manner of personal information, like their school grades and medical issues, which they may not want strangers knowing in the future.

“If you were to flip the script [and] have, let's say, a 16-year-old whose entire social media channel was just about her mom, and every week, that's what she was posting: she had a project fell through at work, or she had a fight with her husband, or even just something as simple as, she cooked dinner and it didn't turn out very well, and now she's upset?” McCarty said. “I think if we saw a 16-year-old doing that to their parent, we'd have much stronger feelings about it; we would have a much more visceral reaction.”

Similar legislation has been introduced in seven states — Arizona, Georgia, Maryland, Missouri, Ohio, Rhode Island and Washington — while more are discussing introducing their own laws. McCarty said that includes interest from entertainment industry hubs of New York and New Jersey, as well as Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and Utah.

Experts have warned repeatedly that such protections are necessary, given that the patchwork of existing data privacy laws are not robust enough and that child stars are ripe for exploitation by their parents, other family members or older collaborators. In the Chicago Journal of International Law, Rachel Caitlin Abrams argued that the family and child influencer industry is “likely prohibited” under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child due to the risk of exploitation. Abrams suggested that California’s approach may not be sufficient.

“To fully address the problem, the most effective legal regimes will need to incorporate child welfare and data protection laws in addition to labor laws,” she wrote. “This can help curb the family influencer industry’s exploitative and potentially dangerous behaviors.”

In time, McCarty said they want to see federal legislation protecting child influencers, especially as the money they make will surely increase from 2019’s findings that such influencers earn $10,000 for each sponsored post. It’s important for lawmakers to be proactive, McCarty said, to avoid any disastrous consequences.

“There is this perception of, well, it's just fun and it's a side gig and a hobby, and it's just spontaneous and everybody enjoys it,” they said. “But I think we often forget, when it comes to content like that, that we don't really know what goes on behind the scenes.”