California’s “Childfluencer” Laws - A Strong Enough Deterrent?
California has long since been known as the land of opportunity on the west coast. Particularly, for influencers and social media personalities who hope to make it big. But in cases where it’s not an aspiring woman, or hopeful man, but a family paving their child’s path to the Hollywood sign - is that opportunity still just as pure? Children as young as toddlers are broadcast online, to the subsequent financial gain of their parents; a reality we’ve come to experience in the modern world. The state of California hopes to keep that reality from harming the child in question with their new laws, protecting child influencers, or “childfluencers”.
On September 26th of 2024, Governor Gavin Newson signed two laws into effect which protect minors who feature in online platforms such as TikTok or Instagram from financial abuse. This type of law protecting children in show business does exist in California and has for decades, example being Coogan’s Law of 1939, but was not applicable to online performers, and only children in TV or movie productions. According to these laws, parents of child influencers will be required to prove the existence of a trust in their child’s name, and place 15% of whatever the child earns into it for their free use and access when they come of adult age. This applies to artistic and creative content, as well as monetized content.
Gavin Newsom with Demi Lovato, holding the signed bills.
The ramifications of this law has already started impacting families who feature their children in their content. There has been a migrational wave of parents leaving the state to go to others who do not have the same laws, such as Tennessee, in order to avoid the impositions of the law. As well, there has been a sizable deterrence to families who were hoping to come to California for its opportunity in the industry, only to think again now that their plans could be disrupted by these legalities.
While I believe these new laws are a great step towards ensuring the rights of child performers, and ensuring that the protections of old are able to be maintained in a constantly digitalizing world, it also gives way to some concern. What does it mean, when families leave the so-called “golden” land of stardom, or are reluctant to come, because it means ensuring their child is fairly compensated? What impression does that give? Especially concerning historical cases of parents using their children as financial powerhouses for their own gain such as Shirley Temple, or more recently, Britney Spears, how much can the law do when parents can simply pack up and move? When parents can still declare conservatorships, or control their daily living such as the roof over their head and the food on their plate?
Protestors for the “Free Britney” movement, a movement to support Britney Spears fighting against her parents’ conservatorship of her since 2008, outside of the superior court.
As digital influencing and content creation becomes more of a verifiable career, the legal landscape will be sure to follow behind. Most likely, other states will pass similar laws, just like California and states such as Illinois and Minnesota. While these laws are a glimmer of hope for these young stars, there is still concern to be raised when it comes to the parents behind the camera.
