INTRODUCTION
The entertainment industry is ever-changing, particularly due to the rise of the digital age. Platforms like Instagram, YouTube, and TikTok give more people access to entry, providing an easy way to showcase the arts and grow a fanbase quickly publicly. Primary demographics that utilize social media include child musicians and content creators, and these young musicians can often gain traction and create fanbases primarily through these digital platforms. However, legislation on compensation for minors in the digital space has only recently been developed. This new act is an extension on the Coogan’s Law of 1939, which was first introduced to protect the earnings of minors in the entertainment and sports industries [1]. Most recently, the Child Content Creator Rights Act (CCC Act) was passed in California in 2024 as an addendum to Coogan’s law [2], addressing the rights and protections of child performers on digital platforms. This starts a changing precedent, developing and adapting legislation to evolving industries[3]. This article will explore the history, case studies, and evolution of legislation for minors in the entertainment industry. It will mainly focus on digital platform legislation in the modern-day industry and how this could combat many concerns on financial, ethical, and image protections for child musicians, content creators, and actors.
THE HISTORY OF COOGAN’S LAW
Coogan’s Law, which has protected minors, particularly child actors in the entertainment industry, for many years, originated after the case involving child actor Jackie Coogan [4]. Coogan was discovered in 1919 by Charlie Chaplin and was soon cast in the famous comedian’s movie, The Kid. Following this film, Coogan became an overnight sensation.[5] Shortly after his 21st birthday and the death of his father, Coogan realized that he had not received any financial compensation for his work as a child actor. Child labor laws were still underdeveloped at the time, meaning all earnings from a child actor’s work went directly to the parent.[6]
Furthermore, traditional child labor laws did not apply to child entertainers, as this profession was considered “untraditional”. [7] This situation was often informally referred to as the Shirley Temple Act.[8] After this realization, Coogan sued his mother and former manager to access his earnings.[9] This case led to establishing the Coogan Law, which safeguards a percentage of a child actor’s monetary earnings. Though this was progress for young artists, the 1939 iteration of the Coogan Law was significantly flawed and contained many loopholes, resulting in long-term conflicts. Over the years, the Screen Actors Guild and the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (SAG-AFTRA) have been successful in navigating some of these loopholes, including the key clarification stating that 15% of minors’ earnings must be set aside in a trust fund, known today as the Coogan Account.[10]
As of January 2000, California law affirms that any monetary compensation earned by a minor for their work is the property of said minor.[11] Since minors cannot legally control their assets until they turn 18, California law allows parents to act as fiduciaries, managing the minor’s finances lawfully and ethically. This fiduciary relationship requires parents to act responsibly in the child’s best interests, handling earnings, savings, and investments. They must prioritize the child’s financial well-being, ensuring transparency, good faith, and loyalty in all decisions, such as managing income from acting contracts or saving for future needs like education.
To prevent misuse of this authority, California law imposes safeguards, such as court oversight or trusts, to ensure accountability. Any breach of fiduciary duty, such as mismanaging or misappropriating the child’s assets, can result in legal consequences. This arrangement bridges the gap until the minor hits adulthood, ensuring their earnings and financial future are protected.[12]
THE EMERGENCE OF THE CHILD CONTENT CREATOR RIGHTS ACT (CCC) AND OTHER STATEWIDE PROTECTIONS
While Coogan’s Law addressed the financial exploitation of child performers in traditional entertainment, different forms of entertainment and opportunities for child actors and entertainers have started to emerge.[13] However, with the rise of social media, these laws have not yet adapted to digital spaces. From 2015 to 2019, the percentage of children watching online videos daily more than doubled so that by 2019, 56% of 8 to 12-year-old and 69% of 13 – 18-year olds were watching every day, spending on average 56 to 59 minutes a day.[14]
The Child Content Creator Rights Act, introduced in California in 2024 and enacted on January 1, 2025, ensures that creators under 18 who are featured in online content earn fair financial benefits from using their images. Content creators who feature minors in at least 30% of their content must set aside 65% of their earnings into a trust account, which the minor can access when they reach adulthood. However, the bill also specifies that while parents do not need formal contracts to record or post videos of their family, minors in these videos are not automatically entitled to profits generated by their likeness and participation unless the content meets the 30% threshold. This means that while parents can continue posting family videos without needing contracts, the law ensures that when a minor’s involvement is substantial (30% or more of the content), a portion of the earnings from that content is set aside for the child’s future benefit. This helps prevent the exploitation of minors by ensuring they receive compensation for their participation once they come of age.[15]
Additionally, in August 2023, Illinois became the first state to enact legislation that gave rights to children featured in monetized family vlogs and content.[16] “Illinois’s new child influencer law (effective as of July 1, 2024) requires vloggers that include children in their content to set aside a portion of the compensation they receive from that content into a trust for the minor”.[17] Based on how much monetized content the minor is featured in, a percentage of their earnings is set aside until the creator turns 18 or is legally declared emancipated, like Coogan’s Law. They must also provide minors with access to the amounts put into a trust fund and a clear record of how much money is being deposited into the account. Minors are entitled to a private right of action to enforce this law against the adults creating the content, given these requirements are not met.[18]
While the Child Content Creator (CCC) Rights Act and Illinois’ child labor laws both aim to protect the financial and personal interests of minors in the entertainment and content creation industries, their approaches differ based on the mediums they target. Illinois’ law addresses child influencers specifically, ensuring a portion of their earnings from online content is safeguarded, whereas the CCC Rights Act takes a broader approach, encompassing all forms of minor participation in content creation, from traditional media to digital platforms. Together, they reflect a growing awareness of the need to adapt labor protections to the evolving entertainment landscape.
CASE STUDY: ETHICAL AND LEGAL CONCERNS OF CHILD INFLUENCERS IN FAMILY VLOGGING
Platforms like YouTube, TikTok, and Instagram place countless minors in many forms of monetized content without the protections afforded to their counterparts in film and television. One specific category of content is the rise of family vlogging, where families create and share video content that documents the daily lives, experiences, and activities of family members on social media. This genre often features parents and children as central figures, with content ranging from lighthearted moments to more intimate or staged portrayals of family life. Family vlogging is a form of entertainment, often monetized through advertisements, sponsorships, and brand collaborations, making it both a cultural phenomenon and a commercial enterprise. However, with children being at the forefront of a lot of this content, it can be argued that many personal and intimate moments in a minor’s life are being documented and utilized for public consumption and exploitation. This can include instances where children’s personal lives can be excessively exposed or their earnings are misappropriated, often due to the lack of explicit legal protections on digital platforms.
Shari Franke, the eldest daughter of Ruby Franke, a former family vlogger convicted of child abuse, testified before the Utah Senate committee in October 2024 to address the ethical and legal issues surrounding child influencers in family vlogging. She highlighted the lack of legal protection for children in the industry, where they often work without guaranteed compensation. Franke explained that, despite receiving some payment, this money was frequently used as a bribe for filming embarrassing or vulnerable moments, like personal breakdowns or illnesses, rather than fair wages.[19]
Franke described how children in these situations often believe they have agency but are manipulated into sharing private moments for content, a phenomenon she likened to Stockholm Syndrome: a psychological phenomenon in which a victim develops positive feelings towards their captor or abuser[20]. She emphasized that no amount of money or experiences, like vacations or shopping sprees, could compensate for the emotional toll of having one’s childhood exploited online. Franke herself faced harassment and predatory attention due to her publicized life, underscoring the dangers children in the industry face, including loss of privacy and long-term psychological harm.[21]
Her testimony also addressed the industry’s lack of accountability. She noted that many family vloggers avoid formal business structures like LLCs, leading to under-the-table payments and no guarantees that children are fairly compensated. According to Franke, this perpetuates unregulated child labor, where children are exploited for revenue-generating content but are often left without financial security or proper consent for their participation.
Though Franke did not offer specific solutions, she urged lawmakers to act before the issue worsens, pointing out that child influencers may face emotional distress or legal complications as they grow older and realize the consequences of their filmed lives. She called for legal reforms to protect child influencers from exploitation and ensure they receive fair compensation for their labor. Ultimately, she argued that the risks and ethical concerns of family vlogging make it necessary to reconsider the industry’s practices to protect children from long-term harm.[22]
HOW THESE LAWS IMPACT YOUNG MUSICIANS
The challenges child influencers face in the digital space are not entirely dissimilar to those young musicians and performers encounter. Like family vloggers, child musicians often navigate complex dynamics of financial oversight, parental involvement, and public exposure, whether in traditional entertainment or digital platforms such as YouTube or TikTok. The Child Content Creator Rights Act, while primarily aimed at digital content creators, has implications for safeguarding the rights and earnings of young artists, offering a foundation for broader protections in the evolving entertainment landscape. This shift prompts a closer examination of how these laws can additionally support child musicians, ensuring they are also shielded from exploitation while enabling them to thrive creatively and financially.
CASE STUDY: JoJo vs. Blackground Records
Joanna Levesque, known professionally as JoJo, is an American singer, songwriter, author, and actress who gained fame at 13 with her breakout hit “Leave (Get Out).” Born December 20, 1990, JoJo’s early success in the pop music scene led to a string of hit singles and albums. While initially known for her pop hits, JoJo’s musical style incorporates elements of R&B and hip-hop. Over the years, she has navigated challenges in the music industry and has written a memoir reflecting on her experiences, continuing to evolve as an artist with a loyal fanbase.[23]
In 2014, JoJo concluded a nearly decade-long legal battle with Blackground Records, breaking free from a restrictive seven-album contract she had signed at just 12 years old. The contract, signed with her mother’s consent due to her being a minor, was based on the label’s and their lawyer’s assurances that it was a “great deal.” Coming from a modest background, JoJo and her mother were drawn to Blackground’s promise of a family-like environment and stability. However, they lacked industry knowledge and trusted the label’s guidance. She sued Blackground Records because New York State law prohibits minors from signing contracts that last more than seven years. JoJo claims that her parents signed a contract with the label in 2004, so, by law, her deal should have expired in 2011.[24]
Blackground Records is a record label founded in 1993 by Barry and Jomo Hankerson in efforts to sign their niece and R&B artist, Aaliyah, and operated under the parent company of Jive Records. Since then, they have been acquired by Universal/Interscope and have been home to many of today’s R&B artists, such as Toni Braxton, Aaliyah, Ginuwine, and JoJo. However, Blackground Records also has a history of breaching and violating contracts.[25] A prime example includes the case of Aaliyah, in which the ownership of her masters was not transferred over to her estate after her death, resulting in the delay of the artist’s discography being released on streaming services. Paul LiCalsi, on behalf of the statement, expressed that the desire to release Aaliyah’s music on streaming services has been completely hindered due to the difficulty in transferring rights from Blackground to the estate.[26] Aaliyah’s estate has criticized Blackground Records for withholding much of her music from streaming platforms for nearly 20 years, citing a lack of transparency and regular accounting. Despite recent releases of Aaliyah’s catalog, the estate has demanded full disclosure of earnings and terms of the new distribution deal, pledging to continue defending Aaliyah’s legacy legally while expressing a sentiment of forgiveness.[27] Since these controversies, Blackground has since restructured into Blackground 2.0, including a streaming service now possessing a distribution deal with Empire Distribution. They officially stated that artists would be compensated for everything according to their initial agreements. In response, JoJo tweets that she still has not been compensated for any of the streams of her original releases (before re-recording).[28]
Initially, JoJo experienced great success, becoming the youngest solo artist to top the Billboard charts with her 2004 hit “Leave (Get Out)” and then releasing her 2006 album The High Road. However, her career came to a halt as Blackground failed to release her subsequent works while refusing to let her out of her contract. Shortly after signing, she began hearing testimonies about the label’s instability and witnessed it firsthand through frequent distribution changes and lack of communication. Her projects were consistently blocked despite her efforts to create new music, including collaborations with Drake’s producer Noah “40” Shebib.[29]
JoJo refrained from leaking her music out of respect for her collaborators and instead released two free mixtapes, Can’t Take That Away From Me (2010) and Agápe (2012), to connect with fans. Eventually, she filed a lawsuit to escape the contract, citing the lack of transparency and the stifling impact on her career.[30]
Now, JoJo has gone independent, starting her label called Clover Music, a joint deal with distribution from Warner Music Group, and since then has re-recorded her music for complete ownership of her content and possessing complete control and rights over her art.[31]
JoJo’s legal battle with Blackground Records highlights the long-standing issue of minors being placed into restrictive and unethical contracts due to their lack of agency. Her case underscores the necessity of protective legislation like Coogan’s Law and its modern digital extensions, such as the Child Content Creator Rights Act, to ensure that young artists and creators retain financial and creative control over their work.
CHALLENGES AND ETHICAL RAMIFICATIONS OF CURRENT PROTECTIONS
The current protections for digital creators face several challenges and critiques, highlighting the need for more robust and nuanced solutions. One major issue lies in the unintended loopholes that make it difficult to enforce laws, especially for creators outside of California and Illinois, where such protections are not more explicitly defined. For instance, digital content often crosses state and national borders, creating ambiguity in enforcing these laws and jurisdictional authority. Another challenge is determining what constitutes “work” for digital creators, particularly in family or informal environments. There is a lack of differentiation between a formal content creator and an individual who makes videos for leisure. The question arises – Where does the line stand between a formal content creator and a recreational content creator? This ambiguity complicates efforts to protect creators, as the nature of digital content production often blurs the lines between personal and professional spaces.
Additionally, the balance between parental oversight and exploitation presents significant ethical dilemmas, especially in the case of family vlogs. While parental involvement is crucial for ensuring the safety and guidance of young creators, it also raises concerns about exploitation when parents prioritize profit over their child’s well-being. The case of Ruby Franke highlights the extreme risks of this exploitation. This case serves as a reminder of how the pursuit of profit can blur the lines of parental responsibility, putting children in harm’s way both emotionally and physically.[32] Addressing these issues likely requires a collaborative effort between policymakers, platforms, and advocacy groups to close loopholes, clarify definitions, and establish safeguards that protect creators across various contexts.
CONCLUSION
Ensuring the ethical and sustainable treatment of young creators and performers requires a multifaceted approach that addresses legal, educational, and industry-specific responsibilities. Strengthening laws nationwide is likely a critical first step, including advocating for comprehensive federal regulations, expanding the CCC Act to provide consistent protections across states, and implementing them into federal law. Additionally, establishing global standards could address the growing international nature of the digital and entertainment industries, safeguarding young creators worldwide from exploitation and unethical practices.
Education for parents and guardians plays an equally important role, as many families are unfamiliar with the complexities of navigating financial and legal responsibilities associated with their child’s participation in creative industries. Accessible resources, workshops, and guidance can empower families to make informed decisions, advocate for their children’s rights, and plan long-term financial security. Platforms that host and promote young creators must also likely take on significant responsibilities. These companies have the power and obligation to enforce protective measures, adhere to laws, and implement transparent policies that prioritize the safety and well-being of their youngest users. While TikTok and Meta have restrictions to age-regulate the content minors can consume,[33] there has not been a lot of development on the content minors can create.[34]
Reflecting on the progress made since Coogan’s Law, it is clear that while improvements have been made, legislation most likely must continue to adapt to the unique challenges posed by modern industries such as social media, digital content creation, and gig economies. These rapidly evolving sectors may require ongoing efforts to address existing gaps and anticipate new issues. Policymakers, parents, industry leaders, and platforms may need to take further action to collaborate in developing ethical frameworks that protect young creators while promoting a space for opportunity and innovation. By taking these steps, a future based on fairness, accountability, and sustainable practices, allowing young creators to succeed without compromising their rights or well-being will likely be ensured.
[1] “Coogan Law,” SAG-AFTRA, accessed March 4, 2025, https://www.sagaftra.org/membership-benefits/young-performers/coogan-law.
[2] “Critical Financial Protections for Youth Content Creators Passes Senate Floor,” California State Senator Steve Padilla, January 29, 2024, https://sd18.senate.ca.gov/news/critical-financial-protections-youth-content-creators-passes-senate-floor.
[3] Child Star, accessed March 5, 2025, https://www.hulu.com/movie/33cd6fa1-97f4-442a-a1df-4f6406a38a13.
[4] “2010_Sho.Pdf,” accessed March 5, 2025, https://www.writing.ucsb.edu/sites/secure.lsit.ucsb.edu.writ.d7/files/sitefiles/publications/2010_Sho.pdf.
[5] “Jackie Coogan and the Fall of Hollywood’s Child Stars | History Today,” accessed March 5, 2025, https://www.historytoday.com/archive/history-matters/jackie-coogan-and-fall-hollywoods-child-stars.
[6] “Coogan Law.”
[7] Libby Morehouse, “The Kids Are Not Alright: A Look into the Absence of Laws Protecting Children in Social Media,” n.d.
[8] Marina A. Masterson, “When Play Becomes Work: Child Labor Laws in the Era of ‘Kidfluencers,’” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 169, no. 2 (2021): 577–607.
[9] “Coogan Law.”
[10] “Coogan Law.”
[11] “Coogan Law.”
[12] “Fiduciary Relationship,” LII / Legal Information Institute, accessed March 5, 2025, https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fiduciary_relationship.
[13] “New California Laws Protect ‘child Influencers’ from Financial Abuse,” ABC7 San Francisco, September 27, 2024, https://abc7news.com/post/new-california-laws-backed-singer-demi-lovato-protect-child-influencers-financial-abuse/15360950/.
[14] “Media Use and Screen Time – Its Impact on Children, Adolescents, and Families,” American College of Pediatricians, accessed March 5, 2025, https://acpeds.org/position-statements/media-use-and-screen-time-its-impact-on-children-adolescents-and-families.
[15] “Critical Financial Protections for Youth Content Creators Passes Senate Floor.”
[16] Catherine Nagle, “New Laws Protecting Child Influencers: What Marketers and Influencers Need To Know,” Davis+Gilbert LLP, September 6, 2024, https://www.dglaw.com/new-laws-protecting-child-influencers-what-marketers-and-influencers-need-to-know/.
[17] Nagle.
[18] Nagle.
[19] A. B. C. News, “Ruby Franke’s Daughter Speaks out to Lawmakers on Family Vlogging Dangers,” ABC News, accessed March 5, 2025, https://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Family/ruby-frankes-daughter-speaks-lawmakers-family-vlogging-dangers/story?id=114904176.
[20] “Stockholm Syndrome: What It Is, Symptoms & How to Treat,” Cleveland Clinic, accessed March 5, 2025, https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/22387-stockholm-syndrome.
[21] A. B. C. News, “Ruby Franke’s Daughter Speaks out to Lawmakers on Family Vlogging Dangers,” ABC News, accessed March 5, 2025, https://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Family/ruby-frankes-daughter-speaks-lawmakers-family-vlogging-dangers/story?id=114904176.
[22] A. B. C. News, “Ruby Franke’s Daughter Speaks out to Lawmakers on Family Vlogging Dangers,” ABC News, accessed March 5, 2025, https://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Family/ruby-frankes-daughter-speaks-lawmakers-family-vlogging-dangers/story?id=114904176.
[23] “JoJo Was a Teen Sensation. At 33, She’s Found Her Voice Again,” AP News, September 20, 2024, https://apnews.com/article/jojo-joanna-levesque-memoir-book-over-influence-3824730b290c28037016cf80a0196ee7.
[24] “JoJo Sues Record Label After Years of Disputes,” accessed March 5, 2025, https://www.billboard.com/music/music-news/jojo-sues-record-label-after-years-of-disputes-5349596/.
[25] “Here’s Why Aaliyah’s Streaming Debut Comes — 20 Years After Her Death — Is So Controversial,” accessed March 5, 2025, https://www.forbes.com/sites/jairhilburn/2021/08/06/heres-why-aaliyahs-streaming-debut-comes—20-years-after-her-death—is-so-controversial/.
[26] Evan Minsker, “Aaliyah’s One in a Million Arrives to Streaming Amid Dispute Between Label and Estate,” Pitchfork, August 20, 2021, https://pitchfork.com/news/aaliyahs-one-in-a-million-arrives-to-streaming-amid-dispute-between-label-and-estate/.
[27] “Variety Confidential,” iHeart, accessed March 5, 2025, https://www.iheart.com/podcast/1119-variety-confidential-134857405/.
[28] “Here’s Why Aaliyah’s Streaming Debut Comes — 20 Years After Her Death — Is So Controversial,” accessed March 5, 2025, https://www.forbes.com/sites/jairhilburn/2021/08/06/heres-why-aaliyahs-streaming-debut-comes—20-years-after-her-death—is-so-controversial/.
[29] Sydney Gore, “JoJo Sues Record Label After Years of Disputes,” Billboard (blog), July 31, 2013, https://www.billboard.com/music/music-news/jojo-sues-record-label-after-years-of-disputes-5349596/.
[30] Gore.
[31] JoJo As told to Dee Lockett, “JoJo Spent Nearly a Decade Fighting Her Label and Won. Here’s What She Learned, in Her Own Words.,” Vulture, November 2, 2015, https://www.vulture.com/2015/10/jojo-fighting-the-major-label-man-in-her-own-words.html.
[32] News, “Ruby Franke’s Daughter Speaks out to Lawmakers on Family Vlogging Dangers.”
[33] “Introducing Instagram Teen Accounts: Built-In Protections for Teens, Peace of Mind for Parents,” Meta (blog), September 17, 2024, https://about.fb.com/news/2024/09/instagram-teen-accounts/.
[34] “New Features for Teens and Families on TikTok,” Newsroom | TikTok, accessed March 5, 2025, https://newsroom.tiktok.com.
