When it comes to the digital world, we have looked at the impacts of things like improving the management of digital Identities, how our health data is protected in the digital space, and even how to use digital tools for advocacy in the past. This week, we'll take a look at "sharenting", "kidfluencers", and how parents in Illinois will now have to pay their talent.
What is 'Sharenting'?
"Sharenting" refers to the practice of parents sharing (often oversharing) information and visual content about their children on social media platforms. Sharenting usually involves posting media related to milestones, parenting hacks, and other personal details related to their children's life, experiences, and upbringing.
While sharing moments of family life can be a way for parents to connect, express joy, and build community, there are also concerns associated with sharenting:
- Privacy and Consent: Depending on the parent's approach, a child's "consent" may not be considered in the decision to share their information or media of themselves online. Also, children may not be old enough to understand the implications of their digital presence, so questions of their actual ability to consent is a topic of debate.
- Security and Safety: Sharing too much information about a child's routine and activities could potentially expose them to risks like identity theft, stalking, or other dangers.
- Future Impact: As children grow older, they might have concerns about their online presence and the extent to which their parents have shared personal information about them. This could affect their reputation and relationships.
- Digital Footprint: The information shared online becomes a part of a child's digital footprint, potentially influencing their online identity and perception of themself in the future.
- Cyberbullying and Harassment: Children might become targets of cyberbullying or online harassment due to what is shared about them.
- Lack of Control: Once information is shared online, it can be difficult to control its distribution and prevent it from being used in unintended ways.
What are 'Kidfluencers'?
"Kidfluencers" describes young children, typically under the age of 16, who have gained significant popularity and influence on social media platforms, particularly on TikTok, YouTube, Twitch, and Instagram. These young individuals create themselves or are main part of content created by their parents shared on these platforms. Content can range from toy unboxing, product reviews, family vlogs, and more. Similar to adult influencers, kidfluencers collaborate with brands, create sponsored content, and can attract a very large following. Kidfluencer accounts, which can earn $20,000 or more for sponsored posts, often are run and controlled by parents and not set up in the child’s name due to age restrictions on social platforms.
The rise of kidfluencers as part of sharenting has raised concerns about child labor laws, ethics, and the potential impact on the children's well-being highlighted before. One of the main concerns raised by people is how the pressure of maintaining an online presence and dealing with potential negative comments or cyberbullying could have unintended emotional and psychological consequences.
What is the history behind this?
Coogan's Law
There is actually a long of history around what lead to this bill. Jackie Coogan’s Law, also known as the California Child Actor's Bill, is a legal provision passed in 1936 designed to protect child actors' earnings and financial interests. It is named after Jackie Coogan, a child actor who rose to fame in the silent film era, most notably for his role as "The Kid" with Charlie Chaplin. Coogan's parents and manager mismanaged his earnings, and by the time he became an adult, he was nearly penniless despite having earned a substantial amount of money for the work he had done.
The California Child Actor's Bill requires that 15% of a child actor's earnings be set aside in a trust or blocked trust account. The law places restrictions on how the earnings can be used, aiming to prevent parents, guardians, or managers from misusing or squandering a child actor's income.
The protections provided by Jackie Coogan's Law have since been extended and expanded in various ways, including the establishment of regulations for entertainment work permits, mandatory education requirements for child performers, and other legal safeguards aimed at ensuring the well-being and proper treatment of child actors in the entertainment industry. Many of these items are at the heart of the current debate around kidfluencers.
Unsafe Sharenting
Unfortunately, there are many instances showcasing how sharenting can lead to unsafe, exploitative situations for kids. In 2017, a Maryland couple lost custody of their children and were sentenced to five years of probation for child neglect after they posted 'prank' videos of themselves screaming at their children and breaking their toys on their viral YouTube channel 'DaddyOFive'. In 2019, a mother was accused of abusing her seven adopted children to get them to perform for her popular YouTube channel Fantastic Adventures. According to police, the mother withheld food and water, restricted restroom access, and beat and pepper-sprayed the children for subpar performances.
Myka and James Stauffer meticulously documented every step of their process of adopting a young child from China with autism, only to eventually "rehome" him. In 2020, the couple took to their YouTube to explain that they would be placing their 4½-year-old son with a new family. Another couple, Nikki and Dan Phillippi, have faced immense backlash because they said they canceled the adoption partly because the process required that adopted children not appear in social media content for a year.
Regulations and guidelines regarding the involvement of kidfluencer marketing vary from country to country. Some regions have introduced laws to protect the rights and well-being of child performers and influencers, while others are still grappling with the challenges posed by this relatively new phenomenon.
What does the bill do?
Earlier in August, Illinois officially passed the nation’s first legislation aimed at protecting child influencers earlier this month with SB1782. The bill was inspired by a 13 year old constituant, Shreya Nallamothu, who wrote a letter last year to her state senator and the bill sponsor, Democrat Dave Koehler, urging him to consider legislation to protect young influencers. Koehler had this to say in his press release, "The rise of social media has given children new opportunities to earn a profit. Many parents have taken this opportunity to pocket the money, while making their children continue to work in these digital environments.”
Under the bill, kidfluencers are entitled to a percentage of earnings based on how often they appear on video blogs or online content that generates at least 10 cents per view. To qualify, the content must be created in Illinois, and kids would have to be featured in at least 30% of the content in a 30-day period. The compensation is defined as so: if a child is in 50% of a video, they should receive 25% of the funds; if they’re in 100%, they are required to get 50% of the earnings. If more than one child is depicted and they all meet the threshold for being compensated, they would split their share of the revenue evenly. The vlogger parents would be responsible for maintaining records of kids’ appearances and setting aside gross earnings for the child in a trust account for when they turn 18.
SB1782 also amends Illinois Child Labor Law to allow teenagers over the age of 18 to take legal action against their parents if they were featured in monetized social media videos and not properly compensated, similar to the rights held by child actors thanks to Coogan's Law.
Earlier versions of SB1782 included a section allowing for someone to request deletion of content posted of them as a minor, but bill sponsor Koehler said it was taken out because “there was really no way of enforcing it.” This idea has been dubbed by European countries who have enacted similar policies to SB1782 as the “right to be forgotten.”
What else is happening around this?
In 2020, France unanimously passed a law entitling child influencers under 16 to a portion of their social media revenue, as well as "the right to forget". Under France's right to be forgotten, platforms are required to remove children’s videos upon their direct request, even without parental consent.
In the US, both Washington and California have proposed similar legislation. California's AB2388 clarified that the existing laws protecting child performers who appear in advertising include children engaged as social media influencers, but that provision was removed by the time of the bill's passage. Washington's HB1627 included the right to be forgotten stating that children of influencers would be allowed to request the deletion of content featuring them “from any internet platform or network that provided compensation to the individual’s parent or parents in exchange for that content.”
As some states look to protect child labor laws, we are also seeing a large initiative by other states to instead loosen child labor laws to help alleviate workforce shortages. According to a report by the Economic Policy Institute, at least ten states have looked at passing this kind of legislation over the last two years. Bills have been proposed in Arkansas, Iowa, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Ohio, and Wisconsin.
Iowa passed a law which extends allowable working hours for 14 and 15 year olds, modifies the scope of permissible occupations for certain children, and permits 16 and 17 year old employees to serve alcohol in certain establishments. The Ohio Senate passed a bill (currently sitting in the Ohio House) that would allow students ages 14 and 15 to work until 9 p.m. during the school year with their parents’ permission. Because this is later than federal law allows, they are also asking the Congress to amend its own laws.
Arkansas Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders signed a law, known as the Youth Hiring Act of 2023, which eliminates permits that required employers to verify a child’s age and their parent’s consent. State Senator Fredrick Love had this to say about the passage of the bill, "When you take away the permit, it takes away protections that children and families have. When children are not protected, people prey on them. When you begin to talk about human trafficking, this is where this could be a dangerous situation where you have children—number one, you don't know how old they are—doing unsuitable work for children, and their parents not knowing where they are. That opens up a whole new realm of work—because you don't want 16-year-olds working in strip clubs, you don't want 16-year-olds working in factories where they're putting their lives at risk. I think this bill, Act 195, is a step in the wrong direction in protecting our children."
Cover Photo by Tanaphong Toochinda on Unsplash
About BillTrack50 – BillTrack50 offers free tools for citizens to easily research legislators and bills across all 50 states and Congress. BillTrack50 also offers professional tools to help organizations with ongoing legislative and regulatory tracking, as well as easy ways to share information both internally and with the public.