On September 26, former child star Demi Lovato joined Californian Governor Gavin Newsom to sign two pieces of legislation to protect child social media influencers. One of the new laws (SB 764) ensures that minors will have financial and legal protections for monetized online content by authorizing parents or guardians to set aside some of their earnings in trust accounts. The other piece of legislation being put in place (AB 1880) is an expansion of the Coogan Law, which has been around since 1939 and works to protect child actors by making sure that their employers put at least 15 percent of their gross earnings in a trust account.
Demi Lovato, currently a singer and activist, has been candid about the exploitation she faced as a child star. Lovato was only 10 years old when she had her first on-screen performance in Barney & Friends, and her career as a child actor continued to grow as she starred in Disney movies, including Camp Rock and Princess Protection Program. In a Call Her Daddy episode, Lovato detailed the abuse she faced as a Disney child star that led to eating disorders and drug abuse. “At a certain point,” said Lovato, referring to the financial pressure she faced, “I was paying for the roof over my whole family’s head, and my dad had quit his job to become my manager so his income was coming from me.”
Unfortunately, Lovato’s experience of being the family breadwinner as a child is rampant within the social media world. The rise of family channels on YouTube, which has vlog content that primarily features children, has led to similar exploitation that Lovato faced. Family vlogging is one of the most profitable forms of content because it is family-friendly and attracts more views and sponsors—indeed, a 2019 Pew Research Center study found that videos with young children in them had on average three times as many views as videos that did not feature a young child.
As traditional media is no longer the only source of entertainment, the evolution of social media content that features children has brought on additional ethical concerns. The seemingly wholesome genre of family content has sparked debates over children being exposed to online predators, as well as child abuse coming from their own parents. Concerns of privacy of children’s lives and social ostracization have also surfaced. Legislation that grants child influencers financial protection will hopefully serve as a safeguard against these other sinister forms of abuse and exploitation.
How did we get here?
Newsom’s legislation makes California one of only two US states, other than Illinois, to have legal protections for children monetizing on social media. We still have a long way to go when it comes to enacting universal security for children making money online, because we’re at the start of a cultural shift of what we consider to be child labor.
As inescapable as social media is, it has only existed for a hot minute. YouTube, a huge source of family channel content, was launched less than 20 years ago, and family vlogging content became popular as recently as 2010. Since this kind of unprecedented entertainment is so new, the law has yet to catch up.
One explanation for recent government attention is the rise of allegations of abuse in family channels. Ruby Franke, the mom behind the YouTube channel “8 Passengers”, pleaded guilty in a child abuse case in December 2023 in a viral lawsuit that has sparked more discourse on family channels.
GUILTY GUILTY GUILTY GUILTY!!
— Spankie SWOOP Valentine (@SpankieV) December 18, 2023
Ruby Franke just plead guilty to 4 out of 6 charges of aggravated child abuse (a second degree felony)
She came out smiling…
Ruby should serve substantial time in prison away from children, but I’m not holding my breath
pic.twitter.com/U2VHyeE5Ef
Another reason may be a general change in how child influencers are seen. Someone posting their children online may not be a big deal, but when it starts to result in monetary gain, the dynamic changes. The success of family channel content has everything to do with the kids. Without the children, the views (and revenue) would go away—which means that the participation of children in content directly correlates to the family’s earnings. This puts young children in a similar situation as Lovato, who become responsible for their parents’ income.
At first glance, it may not seem like the children are “working” if they’re just shown in family content—aren’t they just spending time with their parents? However, the “informal” nature of this work is what makes it so dangerous. Unlike most child actors, children who do online content are never not at work. Their parents are their bosses, and every moment at home can be captured by a camera. These children have to always be ready to “perform” at any time—their work day never ends. From this perspective, family channels are definitely a form of child labor, especially because their monetary success relies on the child’s camera appearances.
Newsom agrees: “A lot has changed since Hollywood’s early days, but here in California, our laser focus on protecting kids remains the same. In old Hollywood, child actors were exploited. In 2024, it’s now child influencers.”
California joining Illinois in the fight for new child influencer protections is a step closer toward a culture where we view their social media fame as what it is: a job that they deserve compensation for.
What's Your Reaction?
