In recent years, the increasing presence of family vlogs and child influencers on parent-run social media accounts has brought child exploitation to the forefront of concern in society. However, family vlogging is not a new phenomenon; it began in 2010 through YouTube content creators. YouTube families would center nearly all content on their underage children. This trend has been amplified as a result of the recent boom of TikTok. Many of these new TikTok accounts focus exclusively on their children while the parents remain behind the camera. YouTube and TikTok creators are paid by views and content interaction. Unfortunately, the children who star in family vlogging content are not entitled to any monetary compensation or legal protections. The lack of protections provided for these child influencers opens the door for parents to exploit their vulnerable children for financial gain. Despite this issue exponentially growing in the last fourteen years, there are no laws at the federal level that seek to protect child influencers.
Moreover, the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) outlaws oppressive child labor by limiting the hours that a minor child can work and establishing the minimum age that a child must have before entering the workforce.[i]However, the child provision of the FLSA does not extend protections to child actors and leaves regulation of child acting up to the states.[ii] In 1939, California was the first state to pass legislation attempting to protect child actors’ financial interests.[iii] California passed the “Coogan Act” after famous child actor Jackie Coogan sued his mother and former manager for millions of dollars.[iv] Coogan’s mother and former manager had spent all Coogan’s money, leaving Coogan with nothing to his name in adulthood.[v] Coogan had worked in the film industry throughout his entire childhood, but because of the lack of protections for child actors, his mother was able to exploit his finances.[vi] The Coogan Act underwent various reforms throughout the years, and in 2000, it officially established that all earnings by child actors were the property of the child and not the parent.[vii] The Coogan Act also required that at least fifteen percent of the child’s earnings be put into a blocked trust account that would be disbursed on the child’s eighteenth birthday.[viii] As of today, only five states have laws analogous to the Coogan Act: California, New York, Illinois, Louisiana, and New Mexico.[ix]
The limited states that provide protections to child actors directly correlates with the states that have large film industries.[x] However, the growing issue with child influencers is not concentrated in a single state; family vloggers that exploit their children for content can be found anywhere in the United States. On August 30, 2023, a famous family vlogger, Ruby Franke, was arrested on aggravated child abuse charges.[xi] Ruby Franke was known for her popular YouTube channel “8 Passengers,” which focused on the upbringing of her six underage children in Springville, Utah. It is reported that Ruby Franke amassed a small fortune in her seven years of content creation.[xii] Franke’s six children, despite being the central focus of the posted content, did not receive a single cent of the income generated by the YouTube videos.[xiii] Beyond the monetary exploitation, Franke’s children underwent years of abuse and were unable to consent to what parts of their lives were being published online for millions of viewers to see.
Recently, “Wren & Jacquelyn,” a TikTok account administered by a mother, has sparked controversy because of the blatant intent of the mother to monetize on her four-year-old daughter’s innocence. The account strictly posts videos of the toddler daughter in “compromising” positions. The mother has faced constant backlash for posting videos of her daughter in bathing suits whilst forcing the daughter to make statements that have a sexual undertone.[xiv] “Wren & Jacquelyn” highlights the troubling dynamic that surrounds child exploitation, where parents prioritize financial gain over the well-being of their children. Cases like these put emphasis on the growing need for protective measures that, at a minimum, safeguard the financial interests of child influencers.
Earlier this year, on July 1, Illinois became the first state to pass legislation to protect child influencers.[xv]Reminiscent of the Coogan Act, Illinois’ law requires that children sixteen and under receive compensation if they are in at least thirty percent of the content for which the parent is paid.[xvi] The compensation that the child influencer is entitled to is to be placed in a trust account that is disbursed on the child’s eighteenth birthday.[xvii] Illinois’ law is the first step in the right direction, and given that family vloggers can be located anywhere, other states should consider adopting similar legislation. However, in this growing digital age, the federal government should adopt legislation that federally protects child influencers from the monetary exploitation perpetuated by their own parents. In the coming years, federal legislation should also seek to closely regulate parent-run social media accounts that fully center on underage children, especially before the child can truly decide if they consent to an online presence.
[i] See 29 U.S.C. § 212 (covering the restrictions placed on child labor).
[ii] See Joe Guerra, Child Actor Labor Laws, Explained, Backstage (Apr. 22, 2024), https://www.backstage.com/magazine/article/child-actor-laws-76778/ (“But one industry that was exempt from adhering to the FLSA was entertainment. As a result, each state was left to decide which child labor laws they wished to enact, if any.”).
[iii] See id. (explaining that the earliest milestone in child actor protection occurred because of Jackie Coogan’s lawsuit).
[iv] See Coogan Law, Screen Actors Guild – Am. Fed’n of Television & Radio Artists, https://www.sagaftra.org/membership-benefits/young-performers/coogan-law (last visited Nov. 14, 2024) (explaining Jackie Coogan’s lawsuit).
[v] See id. (explaining how California law at that time had no protections for child actors, which allowed for Coogan’s finances to be exploited).
[vi] See id. (“It wasn’t until his 21st birthday after the death of his father and the dwindling of his film career that Jackie realized he was left with none of the earnings he had work so hard for as a child.”).
[vii] See id. (explaining the history of the Coogan Act and on January 1, 2000, is when California law “affirmed that earnings by minors in the entertainment industry are the property of the minor, not their parents.”).
[viii] See id. (explaining the requirements for the blocked trust account “commonly known as a Coogan Account.”).
[ix] See The Wrapbook Team, Coogan Law: How it Works & What is a Coogan Account, Wrapbook (Aug. 2, 2024), https://www.wrapbook.com/blog/producers-guide-coogan-law (listing the states that have laws similar to the Coogan Act in California).
[x] See id.
[xi] See Mateo Smith, How Much Did Ruby Franke Make from YouTube? Abusive Mummy Vlogger Kept Money from Kids, Mirror (Dec. 22, 2023, 10:22 PM), https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/us-news/how-much-ruby-franke-make-31737667 (explaining the Ruby Franke case).
[xii] See id. (reporting “8 Passengers” net worth at $2.5 million).
[xiii] See id. (stating that the children only received abuse from their mother).
[xiv] See Cami Trauschke, TikTok User “Wren and Jacquelyn” accused of Exploitation, Mountaineer (Apr. 29, 2024), https://shsnews.org/50201/news/tiktok-user-wren-and-jacquelyn-accused-of-exploitation/ (detailing the content posted on the “Wren and Jacquelyn” account).
[xv] See Katie Kindelan, Parenting Influencers Speak Out as New Law Designed to Protect Kids Featured on Social Media Goes into Effect, ABC News (July 3, 2024, 4:03 AM), https://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Family/parenting-influencers-speak-new-law-designed-protect-kids/story?id=111580202 (stating that Illinois passed a law to protect child influencers on July 1, 2024).
[xvi] See id.(stating the provisions in the Illinois law that financially protect child influencers).
[xvii] See id.
