The Evolution of Coogan’s Law and the Child Content Creator Rights Act

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...