Julia Johnson
Cam Barrett, a now-grown child of a mommy vlogger, testified to the Washington State Legislature: “When I was nine years old, the intimate details of my first period were shared online.” She spoke in support of passing HB 1627, which would legally protect minor children featured in monetized online content. Over the past decade, parents have increasingly quit their jobs to earn a living by posting videos of their children online. Through account monetization and influencer-branding deals, mommy vlogging can be lucrative. The creator economy is already valued at $250 billion worldwide and is expected to reach nearly half-a-trillion dollars by 2027. Children—by no choice of their own—continue to play a significant part in this industry.[1]
Child labor laws lag woefully behind in protecting children featured in monetized online content. Illinois recently passed legislation to be effective on July 1, 2024, the first of its kind to afford protections to children featured in vlogs. The law requires parents who include their children in monetized videos to set aside a portion of the earned income and creates a cause of action for enforcement.[2] States like Washington, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Missouri, Minnesota, Maryland, Georgia, Arizona, and California are introducing similar legislation, but the ultimate goal should be enacting these protections at a federal level.[3]
An amendment to the Fair Labor Standards Act would properly address the uncompensated, forced child labor in the child-influencing industry.[4] The Fair Labor Standards Act prohibits employing children under the age of fourteen.[5] However, two exceptions leave children in monetized videos unprotected. First, the minimum age requirements do not apply to children under the age of fourteen employed by their parents or guardians, excluding certain dangerous occupations.[6] This exception must be amended if federal law were to ban posting children in monetized online content.[7]
Second, child labor laws do not apply to children employed as actors or performers “in motion pictures or theatrical productions, or in radio or television productions.”[8] This exception, however, would not be applicable to children featured in monetized online content because homemade social media videos are profoundly distinct from the activities listed in the statute.[9]
Though five states have adopted laws requiring parents of “child actors or performers” to put a portion of their child’s earnings into a trust fund,[10] these laws do not reach children featured in monetized online content. While Illinois leads the way with Public Act 103-0556, a federal law would be most effective to achieve universal protection for children.[11]
The root of concern for children in monetized online content lies in consent. Advocates for legislative action not only want children to be compensated for their work, but also want to ensure children have control over their digital footprints and can freely choose whether or not they want to work.[12] Leaving regulation up to states will undoubtedly result in significant inconsistencies. Inconsistent provisions open the door to inadequate protections for children once they reach the age of majority. For example, though the Illinois law provides an exemplary framework for child compensation, a key provision was removed before it passed. This provision, a “right to be forgotten,” would have given children the right to delete content they were featured in as minors upon reaching the age of eighteen.[13] The “right to be forgotten” provision is crucial as society gains awareness of a digital footprint’s life-altering impact. Cam Barrett’s tearful plea to the legislature illustrates the profound harm to children that results when their most vulnerable moments are broadcasted for public consumption and critique.
A comprehensive ban of monetized online content featuring children would be most protective of children’s right to privacy. However, social media giants would likely resist. Powerful social media corporations have successfully squelched legislation to increase online safety for children by claiming a right to freedom of speech;[14] but social media companies would not just oppose a ban on purely principled grounds.[15] Videos featuring children receive heavier foot traffic,[16] and a ban on child-featured content would be a blow to industry revenue.
A realistically attainable model law was adopted by the French Parliament in 2020. This law requires government authorization before parents can post their children in videos if the work creates a labor relation that involves the child.[17] When parents seek authorization, they receive important information about their child’s rights and the consequences associated with posting their likeness online.[18] Additionally, the French law allocates profits toward trust accounts for the children and allows them to exercise their “right to be forgotten” even before they turn eighteen.[19] Congress should look to this law as model legislation that fairly considers public interests and establishes uniform protections and expectations among states. Its model protections would balance parental rights to post their children[20] with the parental responsibility to refrain from exploiting them.
[1] Similarly, former child actors Drake Bell and Jeannette McCurdy have spoken out against the verbally, emotionally, and sexually abusive nature of the industry through documentary-series Quiet on Set and McCurdy’s book I’m Glad My Mom Died. See Anne Branigin & Samantha Chery, “Quiet on Set” Alleges a “Dark Underbelly” at Nickelodeon, Wash. Post: Style (March 25, 2024, 12:19 PM), https://www.washingtonpost.com/style/2024/03/23/quiet-on-set-nickelodeon-dan-schneider-drake-bell/. As the child entertainment industry faces heightened scrutiny, it is important to note that whether on set or at home, children can always be exploited.
[2] This law is only applicable to children under the age of sixteen featured in at least thirty percent of monetized online content produced within a thirty-day period, measured by the percentage of time the child’s likeness, name, or photograph is visually depicted or the subject of oral narration compared to the total length of the video. See Samantha Murphy Kelly, Illinois Passes a Law that Requires Parents to Compensate Child Influencers, CNN: Business (Aug. 16, 2023, 11:51 AM), https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/16/tech/kid-influencer-law/index.html. The child would be entitled to fifty percent of earnings per video proportionate to the time they were featured in the video. See id. For example, a child featured in fifty percent of a video would be entitled to twenty-five percent of the video’s earnings. See id. Section 12.6(c) provides for a private cause of action, allowing a child to sue his/her parents if they knowingly or recklessly fail to follow the provisions regarding the child’s trust account. See also Act of July. 1, 2024, Public Act No. 103-0556, § 5, 820 I.L.C.S. 205.
[3] See generally State-by-State Progress, Quit Clicking Kids, https://quitclickingkids.com/state-by-state-progress/ (last visited Apr. 9, 2024).
[4] See Melanie N. Fineman, Note, Honey I Monetized the Kids: Commercial Sharenting and Protecting the Rights of Consumers and the Internet’s Child Stars, 111 Geo. L.J. 847, 877–81 (2023). See also United States v. Darby, 213 U.S. 100, 118, 125–26 (1941) (holding that the FLSA was within Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce).
[5] See 29 C.F.R. § 570.2(a)(1)(i) (2023).
[6] See 29 C.F.R. § 570.2(a)(2) (2023).
[7] See Fineman, supra note 4, at 877–78.
[8] 29 U.S.C. § 213(c)(3).
[9] See Fineman, supra note 4, at 878.
[10] See id. at 879.
[11] See id. at 887.
[12] See Amber Edney, “I Don’t Work for Free”: The Unpaid Labor of Child Social Media Stars, 32 U. Fla. J.L. & Pub. Pol’y 547, 559–60 (2022).
[13] HB 1627 retains a “right to be forgotten” provision. H.R. 1627 68th Leg., Reg. Sess. (Wash. 2023).
[14] For example, NetChoice recently represented a number of online businesses, including Meta, TikTok, Google, and Amazon, and was granted a preliminary injunction against a California law meant to protect children when accessing the internet by arguing that it violates the First Amendment by failing the standard for commercial speech scrutiny. See Order Granting Motion for Preliminary Injunction at 1, 18, 34, NetChoice v. Bonta, No. 22-cv-08861-BLF (N.D. Cal. Sept. 18, 2023).
[15] For example, an industry group might challenge a blanket ban by arguing that it limits the parents’ freedom of speech because online content is covered by the First Amendment. See Edney, supra note 12, at 567–68.
[16] See Danya Hajjaji, YouTube Lets Parents Exploit Their Kids For Clicks, Newsweek (Oct. 4, 2021 9:00 AM), https://www.newsweek.com/youtube-lets-lawless-lucrative-sharenting-industry-put-kids-mercy-internet-1635112 (reporting that “videos with children who appear to be under the age of 13 received three times as many views as other videos”).
[17] See France: Parliament Adopts Law to Protect Child “Influencers” on Social Media, Library of Congress (Oct. 30, 2020), https://www.loc.gov/item/global-legal-monitor/2020-10-30/france-parliament-adopts-law-to-protect-child-influencers-on-social-media/.
[18] See id.
[19] See id.
[20] See Stacey B. Steinberg, Sharenting: Children’s Privacy in the Age of Social Media, 66 Emory L.J. 839, 861 (2017) (applying parents’ constitutional right to control their children’s upbringing to the decision to post their children online).