"Kidfluencers" have exploded in popularity, transforming children into lucrative money makers for their parents.
This phenomenon has created an unregulated industry raising significant ethical, legal and safety concerns (Ivey Business School). The public increasingly compares this content to a modern form of child labour, and for good reason. The argument that many share is that children cannot provide informed consent to having their lives broadcasted globally to complete strangers while their parents profit (University of Chicago, the law school). Kidfluencing is not only a violation to the right to privacy and (mental) health for the children featured in the content, but also a danger to the children for whom this content is targeted, as they are exposed to risks like misinformation and hidden advertisements (Utrecht University).
Take for example “De Belingas,” one of the most famous Dutch family vlogging YouTube channels, with over 740k followers. They have faced scrutiny for years regarding monetizing off emotional and private moments of their children's life, and more recently for spreading racist misinformation about South Africa’s apartheid to their children and to their young following.
Another example is, the American vlogging family "8 Passengers," with around 2.5 million followers, where the mother, Ruby Franke faced constant scrutiny for her abusive, exploitative and dangerous parenting, which ended in her being imprisoned in 2024 for aggravated child abuse. These are only some cases that reflect the dangers of using children for entertainment purposes.
Existing laws like Coogan's Law attempt to address the financial exploitation by requiring 15% of a child's earnings from entertainment work to be placed in a blocked trust account. This law enhances transparency by requiring greater documentation and reporting of a minor's earnings, with employers (brands and social media platforms) and guardians working together to ensure compliance (Nixon Peabody).
However, the scope is limited, it only applies to some parts of the US, and only protects children financially, failing to address the psychological and physical traumas. As families become dependent on the children for earning, this reverses their roles and puts pressure on the children to constantly perform and maintain engagement, leading to stress, reduced autonomy and the ability to simply be a child (Amber Lynn, 2025).
At the same time, the visibility exposes them to external harm. The New York Times did an investigation looking at follower size and found a correlation of there being more male followers as accounts featuring young girls grew. They found that oftentimes, these men posted predatory and sexually suggestive remarks below their content. The lack of laws and a safeguard in place creates a dangerous loophole where children can be exploited without meaningful protections.
While children may choose to post online themselves, the current system lacks the steady regulation needed to ensure ethical practices. Parents and guardians must educate themselves about the risks of allowing their children to appear on social media as well as what media their children are consuming,
Although, education and awareness alone is insufficient. What we truly need are more defined laws that not only protect children from exploitation, but also hold companies accountable for working with or sponsoring content featuring children. Without such regulations, we continue to normalize the transformation of childhood into a commercial venture with minimal safeguards. We must establish meaningful protections to preserve the dignity and rights of young people in the digital age.
