Experts warn that without regulation, young creators remain vulnerable to exploitation.
“You can’t take anything back. Once it goes online, it’s gone. The ability to live a private or anonymous life, I don’t really have that choice,” says Beckii Flint, better known by her stage name Beckii Cruel.
A former proto-child influencer, Beckii rose to fame at just 12 years-old after posting dance videos on YouTube in 2007. Her success, specifically in Japan, led her to brand deals, becoming the subject of a BBC Three documentary and even releasing a chart-topping DVD, This is Beckii Cruel.
While Beckii herself chose to share her life online during the early days of social media, the past decade has seen an explosion of child and family influencers.
These children are often too young to understand the implications or put onto platforms without informed consent. They generate millions in revenue for brands yet remain unprotected by any laws and are not deemed eligible for traditional child performers legislation.
The UK government’s promise to regulate this phenomenon remains unfulfilled. More than two years after its 2022 report, Lights, camera, inaction? called for urgent safeguards, but no action has been taken.
Meanwhile, children continue to face risks of financial exploitation, privacy violations, and emotional harm. As Ed Magee emphasised in a select committee hearing: “We do not know what they are doing, we do not know how often they are performing, and we do not know the impact it has on them as a child.”
As there is yet to be a legal industry-accepted definition of influencer, it can be hard to clarify what is meant by the term. It is often used interchangeably with labels such as ‘content creator,’ ‘Youtuber,’ and ‘TikToker,’ which are platform dependent.
The Advertising Standards Agency (ASA) defined an influencer as “any human, animal or virtually produced persona active on any online social media platform.”
The discussion on the definition provided in the 2022 government report Lights, camera, inaction? added the prominence of a large following, the ability to shape tastes and potential commercial use. Therefore, a child influencer can be thought of as a minor who fits the above definition.
While there is not the same prominence in the UK of child influencers, who have accounts in their name managed by the parents as in the US, they are the focus of many ‘family’ or parenting accounts and channels.
As there is no register or license for influencing as there is for other child performance it is impossible to say how many child and family influencers there are in the UK.
However, according to Kolsquare, an influencer marketing platform, there are 98,000 influencers with more than five thousand followers in the UK, with reports showing family and parenting to be the fifth most popular subgenre.
Recent controversies in the US have highlighted the complexities surrounding child influencers. Teen Vogue has led the way in sharing the stories of the now-teenage children of influencer parents who have begun to speak out about their experiences growing up in the public eye.
Claire featured extensively on her family’s YouTube channel, expressed feelings of lost privacy and autonomy at an age where she did not appreciate what these were, stating, “Nothing they do now is going to take back the years of work I had to put in.”
This reporting has brought to light the experience of these children as they get older, resulting in legislative attention in several US states to protect child influencers’ rights and earnings.
In California, Governor Gavin Newsom signed Senate Bill 764, extending legal and financial protections to child influencers, ensuring they receive a portion of the earnings from content they are featured in.
This legislative change is strongly supported by Beckii who felt at times her management “weren’t entirely truthful, and as a result, I didn’t get as much money as I now looking back think I should’ve.”
The financial exploitation faced by child influencers is just one aspect of a much larger problem. It is impossible to discuss the troubling nature of child and family influencer culture without addressing the shocking case of the American vlogging family behind the channel 8 Passengers.
Ruby Franke was a Mormon mother of six children living what seemed an idyllic life in Utah. From 2015-2020 Franke would upload vlogs of family life to her channel, amassing 2.5 million subscribers and more than one billion views by 2020.
However, fans became worried in 2020 when it was revealed her 16-year-old son had been banned from his bedroom and made to sleep on a beanbag for seven months. A change.org petition was created accusing Ruby of child abuse and neglect.
Ruby Franke, along with her business partner Jodi Hildebrandt, was arrested in August 2023 after police discovered that Franke’s two youngest children had been severely neglected and abused.
The children, 10 and 12 years-old, were found malnourished, physically emaciated, and in a state of distress when they escaped from Franke’s home and sought help from a neighbour.
Authorities soon uncovered evidence of a pattern of emotional and physical abuse, including extreme punishment, restricted access to food, and confinement.
Franke’s arrest shocked many followers, sparking wider discussions about the dangers of child exploitation in the influencer world, especially in family vlogs, where children’s private lives are often used for profit.
Ruby’s eldest daughter Shari, who had moved to college at the time of her mother’s arrest has recently published a book, The House of My Mother sharing her side of the story, what really happened when the camera was not rolling.
She reflects on her time in the spotlight and how she was blinded to any harm that may come of it, mostly excited by the free trips to Disneyland and getting more Instagram likes than her peers.
“At the time I thought, great, I’ll do that. But then when I got older, it’s like, ‘Oh, that’s now on the internet forever.’ Going bra shopping with my younger sisters when I was 18 and Ruby was filming that, I thought, ‘this is super weird, I do not want people online to be watching my sisters buying bras’.”
While no official legal cases exist against UK family vloggers, several high-profile families have been investigated by social services.
One of these families has been at the forefront of Family vlogging for over a decade. They have almost two million subscribers on YouTube, three million on TikTok and a combined 2.7 million followers on Instagram. They were also the subject of an episode of Stacey Dooley Sleeps Over in 2019.
They have faced backlash on two occasions for their disciplinary methods, including giving icy cold showers to preschool-aged children, which many fans and the online community criticised as ‘harsh,’ ‘cruel,’ and even ‘abusive.’
These incidents prompted multiple reports to authorities, resulting in police and social services visits. Around the same time, authorities investigated a scar on their newborn’s head after receiving viewer concerns.
Following the backlash and investigations, the family issued a public statement to address the controversy, “We are devastated and disappointed to see that the negativity and nasty comments from online trolls have allowed for this to escalate. Unfortunately, we will not be the first or last people in the public eye to experience the unregulated targeting of trolls.”
“Who knew that in the age of viral scandals and cancel culture, it would be the wholesome, family-centered content of (Latter-day Saints) LDS vloggers that would capture the world’s attention?”
Shari Franke
Despite incidents like these and even more severe breaches of their children’s privacy, such as viewers contacting their doctors and schools, the family continues to share their lives online.
It is important to note that while the family have never blatantly said the area they live in, or the schools children attend, it is not hard to find the information online.
In the Stacey Dooley documentary featuring the family, the mother justifies this choice of putting their family life online by emphasizing the financial benefits the lifestyle provides, rhetorically asking, “Well, do you like going on holiday and going to private school?” implying that these material advantages outweigh concerns about online scrutiny and potential privacy breaches.
Throughout the documentary the children often appear unenthusiastic about their lives being filmed, the eldest puts her thumbs in the middle when Dooley asks if she enjoys the camera being out, something which has been constant her whole life.
The biggest worry and strongest case for legislation protecting children being posted online is the possibility of their content reaching sexual predators and paedophiles. When Dooley asks the father about this he appears to downplay its likelihood explaining that every precaution is taken, so what else can he do? In the end, the chance this could be happening is an unavoidable part of their online presence.
Another family of similar prominence has garnered more than 1.3 million subscribers on YouTube and significant followings across other platforms. Despite their popularity, they have faced multiple controversies, including allegations of inappropriate online behaviour involving the father.
In 2018 he was accused of sending inappropriate messages to fans, asking them to meet up with him while on holiday in Florida as his wife and daughters slept nearby, allegedly some of these fans were underage. These accusations sparked widespread criticism, with calls for greater safeguarding within the family vlogging industry.
Critics have also raised concerns over the family’s willingness to monetise highly personal aspects of their children’s lives, exposing them to public scrutiny and privacy violations.
They again made headlines in 2019 when they released a limited edition lifelike doll of their newborn son with Mary Shortle, a York-based doll shop specialising in reborn (extremely realistic) baby dolls selling at £279.
Talking to the camera the mother told her followers “I can’t believe how like him it is. It’s exactly the same. Especially when he has his hat on, it’s so cute.”
They received backlash after this, both online and in mainstream media. This did not seem to affect them. They did the same thing two years later, after welcoming another baby girl, you can still purchase this on the Mary Shortle website for £299.
There is no evidence implying these families have caused any harm to their children, never mind that on the scale as the American 8 Passengers case. Yet some of the accusations faced are eerily like those levelled against Ruby Franke before the full extent of her actions became known.
A prominent advocate in the pursuit of a change in legislation to protect child influencers is Dr Francis Rees of Essex University Law School.
Her current project relates to digital child labour and the risks facing ‘child influencers’. Articulating in the project 22 specific risks facing children in this ‘working arena’.
Francis explains in lectures and media appearances the potential harm faced by child influencers.
The child and family influencing industry is highly lucrative, with children often serving as the main appeal for viewers and brands. Some parents reported losing brand deals after deciding not to feature their children in content anymore, exposing the vital role children play in generating revenue.
Even with the commercial power these children hold, there are no laws in place to compensate them for any time or effort they have put into what is, essentially, work as argued by Dr Rees, when they could have otherwise been playing, doing homework or relaxing.
Harm to a child’s education is another long-term risk associated with ‘kidfluencing’. Influencing commitments, such as attending events or creating content, can interfere with schooling, particularly for younger children who may struggle to perform best at school or have time for homework if they are ‘working’ at home.
Some prominent child influencers have been taken out of school in favour of homeschooling to give them more flexibility around their content creation.
Family dynamics can also shift dramatically, when children become earners, potentially leading to coercion or emotional strain. This was something Beckii had to try hard to move away from after her dad took up the position as her ‘manager’ when she was a teenager.
The invasion of privacy is another key issue, as “personal moments are broadcast to large audiences, leaving children exposed to public scrutiny and long-term digital footprints.”
Negative comments and the pressure to perform can harm their mental health and development. Without legal protections, these harms remain unaddressed, highlighting the urgent need for UK legislation to safeguard kidfluencers’ rights and well-being.
France has taken the lead in Europe by passing groundbreaking legislation. It classes child influencers as professionals and grants them similar protections that their peers in acting and modelling will have such as regulation of hours worked and with all earnings made to be placed into a bank account to be accessed when the child turns sixteen.
Osborne Clarke, an international law firm specialising in digital regulation and employment law, has analysed France’s child influencer legislation. Their assessment highlights key protections granted under the law, such as employment rights, regulated working hours, and financial safeguards for minors.
“The child will be deemed a professional, meaning an employee of the person or entity whose activity consists of making audio-visual records featuring him/her as a main subject, to broadcast them on video-sharing platforms for profit.”
As a result, child influencers will benefit from the French labour code protective rules and their compensation will qualify as a salary. A child’s consent must also be obtained in writing if they are older than 13. “In other words, child influencers having a for-profit activity must be declared workers.”
The French legislation also upholds the child’s right to be forgotten, with platforms being forced to take down any material featuring the child if they request it.
In the UK, the Studer bill currently only protects child influencers appearing on YouTube. It was drafted in 2020 and in the years since there has been a proliferation of child content creators using and profiting off platforms such as TikTok and Instagram.
“We do not know what they are doing, we do not know how often they are performing, and we do not know the impact it has on them as a child.”
Ed Magee
We approached Labour in November to ask whether the new government intends to act on the recommendations from the 2022 report Lights, Camera, Inaction?
After multiple follow-ups, we received a reply at the end of January. Culture Secretary, Lisa Nandy, says the government is continually reviewing the Code of Conduct for influencers, which was launched in 2021.
An updated version is due later this year, and Ms. Nandy said she would be contacting the Education Secretary to “ask her to consider whether there is more we could do across government to protect children in this position.”
Experts agree that all stakeholders, companies, platforms, trade bodies, and parents, must collaborate to ensure children are protected online.
Media academic Sonia Livingstone, who focuses on children’s online safety, compares this challenge to road safety, said: “It has taken the combined efforts of parents, teachers, car designers, road authorities, and town planners to strike an acceptable balance between children’s freedom to navigate their neighbourhood and the attendant risks.”
From the outside, ‘kidfluencing’ may appear cute and harmless, but evidence shows this isn’t always the case. The UK must urgently act to regulate child influencers, ensuring no vulnerable child slips through the cracks. Otherwise, the next major scandal may arise on home soil.
As Shari Franke of 8 Passengers reflects in her book, “Who knew that in the age of viral scandals and cancel culture, it would be the wholesome, family-centered content of [Latter-Day Saints] vloggers that would capture the world’s attention?
“And who could have foreseen that my own family would come to embody both – the wholesome ideal and the scandalous – becoming a cautionary tale of what happens when the line between authenticity and performance becomes blurred beyond recognition?”
Without urgent legal intervention, the UK risks falling behind in protecting child influencers. Policymakers should consider introducing clear employment protections, financial safeguards, and platform accountability measures to prevent future exploitation.
If France, California and Illinois can legislate on this issue, why can’t the UK?
Featured image by Freepik.