Early advertising

Children have been in the entertainment space for a long time. In 1914, Jackie Coogan was appearing in silent films, and appeared in many films after that. By the time he turned 21 the $4 million he had earned throughout his career as a child star had been wasted by his parents. Coogan sued them, and was awarded $126,000.^[5] This led to the creation of the California Child Actor's Bill (Coogan Act), which was passed in 1939.^[6] When that space flourished, brands started picking up child actors to appear as spokespeople in commercials and paper ads, such as Shirley Temple for Royal Crown Cola in 1944.^[7]

In 1940, when television entered the homes of families across the nation, some of the earliest programming was directed at child viewers, including after-school and Saturday morning shows, to help keep kids entertained when the parents were consumed by other tasks.^[8]

Between the 1940s and 1950s, as these child-directed shows flourished, advertising took to the silver screen and often featured the same child actors that starred in the popular shows, like Miss France's Ding Dong School and Rootie Kazootie, who would interrupt programming to deliver commercial messages which reduced the lack of clarity between what was programming and what was an advertisement. This began to fizzle out as the very same actors and presenters began to refuse commercial work to focus on creative and theatrical work.^[8]

Advertising in 1960s, 1970s & 1980s

As actors began to shift away from the commercial limelight, brands began to recognize that they still needed children in the advertisements to relate to the children they were targeting. From this an alternative grew, featuring child actors with little to no notoriety. They were often filmed playing with the toy and delivering a maximum of one or two speaking lines. Brands wanted to communicate the relatability of unknown actors who looked and acted like the kids they were targeting, to establish a sense of resemblance which then would turn into desire to have the product. Popular examples of this practice can be seen in commercials for popular toys at the time like G.I. Joe and Barbie dolls.^[8]

Alternative approach

A more common approach into the market has been through the parents of the child sharing content featuring their child on that parent's account. When the child gains enough recognition, parents then create a separate page for them to form their own following and image independent of the parents'. The reason both these approaches are valid is because the parent is still the account owner, but the star is the child.^[9]

Ethical considerations

Many also have taken issue with the ethics of kid influencing, as there is not much research that demonstrates the long-term effects of fame and notoriety with influencers at such a young age. Children are being targeted by influencers and brands in ways that parents do not recognize as easily. Advertising to kids has been regulated by the government in the past, but not necessarily when it is the kid doing the advertising themselves.^[7] Parents of kid influencers argue that because it is often the parent doing most of the logistical background work, the kids cannot tell the difference from genuinely playing with toys versus doing so for paid promotion.^[9] There are many sides to the argument, but all can agree that there needs to be a discussion about teaching media literacy to children if they are going to be navigating the internet alone.

Influencer parents & families

There is a concern that parents are exploiting their children on social media for money. There is currently no regulation for how much exposure parents showcase their children on social media. There is also no regulation for how much these parents make their children work on social media (doing TikToks, YouTube videos, etc.). There is also no regulation for who and where the money goes to that is generated through the content produced.^[12] These children cannot consent to being broadcast online either since they are just doing what their parents ask, and since they are growing up in the world of social media they think it is normal. There is also the concern that family centric content creators are broadcasting their kids far too often. Many already established family content creators have their cameras on the child as soon as they are born. These newborns are put onto display and are now part of the influencer family. Since they are only babies they have no say or consent to how they are being portrayed online.^[13]

Future effects on kid influencers

Since most kid influencers don't have a say in the social media world they are thrusted into they may not like how they have been portrayed online. As these kids turn into teens and adults they will start to form their own identities and how they were portrayed by their parents online may not be who they truly are. They will also have to deal with the embarrassment of being recorded in their vulnerable moments. One of the main distinctions between child influencers and child actors is that the actors are playing a character the influencers are not. An example of this comes from an influencer family called The Labrant Fam, they filmed a video of them telling their daughter that they were giving away their family dog as an April Fools Joke. Their daughter was filmed crying and posted online for content. The Labrants later posted a video apologizing for putting their daughter in that spot.^[14]

Lack of laws protecting kid influencers

There are very few laws protecting child influencers. There is, however, a bill is currently in committee that will is supposed to "Protecting the interests of minor children featured on for-profit family vlogs."^[15] This lack of protection has raised ethical concerns as to how child influencers will be protected in the future due to the fact that they participate in sponsored deals.^[16] Since children cannot legally operate social media accounts until the age of 13,^[17] their parents will do it for them. Parents will also take brand deals and sponsorships and will subject the children to advertise these sponsors, which the parents will take the money from sponsorships since the children do not know better. Since there are few laws protecting kid influencers this is legal. There is a push for laws such as the Coogan Act^[18] and the Fair Childs Labor Act of 1938 (FLSA)^[19] to protect child influencers as well.  

California Child Protection Bill (Coogan Act)

Image of Bruno Studer, creator of the Studer Bill, which protects the monetary right's of kid influencers.

The California Child Protection Bill more commonly referred to as the Coogan Act, is a bill that requires that all money earned by children in the entertainment industry is their own. Their parents do control over the money. 15% of the money earned is placed in a Coogan Account which is a trust account made for the child's earnings.^[20] This bill does not apply to child influencers, but there is a push for this bill to be reviewed to include protection for child influencers.

France

France is the only country protecting child influencers by law. Bruno Studer, who is a French politician, has a bill that is in effect in France called the Studer Bill. This bill requires parents of child influencers to "apply for authorization before their child is allowed to appear in any monetized content and that money will be locked away in an account."^[21] This bill is a protective measure to ensure that children influencers will be properly compensated for the work they do.     

COPPA amendment

In an effort to modernize the rule with the advancing industry, the FTC reviewed COPPA for two years and came to a revised version that went into effect in 2013. The amended Rule addresses the newer ways children use and access the internet, expanding on the definition of children's personal information to include persistent identifiers such as cookies. Revising this ruling helps give parents the authority to control the release of their child's personal information as it is keeping pace with evolving technologies.^[23]