For most people, childhood photographs are saved in a family album. For children raised by family vloggers, those same moments may be recorded, monetized, and distributed to strangers. Children’s everyday experiences, from ordinary routines to family celebrations can become permanent parts of a parent’s online brand.[1] Before these children are able to understand what a digital footprint is, their parents may have already created one for them.[2]
California Senate Bill 1247 tries to give these children some control.[3] The bill would allow a former child influencer to require a parent, guardian, or family member to delete certain social-media content featuring the former child influencer as a minor.[4] A vlogger subject to the bill would have ten business days to comply or else he or she could face actual damages, injunctive relief, attorney’s fees, and statutory damages.[5]
Although SB 1247 is an important response to a gap in California law, the bill determines the people entitled to its protections through requirements better suited for calculating compensation than protecting privacy. The adult who posted the content must have made money from the content, and images or videos featuring the child must constitute at least thirty percent of the adult’s content shared across platforms. As a result, two adults seeking removal of equally intimate childhood videos could receive different protections based only on the composition and profitability of their parents’ content. If California’s goal is to recognize that former child influencers have an interest in controlling their online presence, that interest should not depend on whether a parent was compensated for enough of the influencer’s childhood.
The shortcomings of existing law help explain why SB 1247 is necessary. California’s Privacy Rights for California Minors in the Digital World Act requires certain online services to allow a minor to remove content that he or she posted as a registered user.[6] The act, however, does not require removal when the content was posted by a third party.[7] That distinction leaves child influencers in a vulnerable position where they may be the subject of the content without uploading it or consenting to its publication.
The California Family Code requires certain family vloggers to maintain records and compensate qualifying minors depicted in online content.[8] A minor is considered “engaged in the work of vlogging” when, in addition to other conditions, the minor appears in at least thirty percent of a vlogger’s compensated content throughout the span of a month.[9] This threshold provides a clear line that distinguishes between a child who regularly participates in monetized content and a child who simply appears in the background.
SB 1247 incorporates a similar thirty-percent threshold into a different legal context. Under the bill, a parent, guardian, or family member qualifies as a “vlogger” only if the child they feature appeared in at least thirty percent of the vlogger’s content and the vlogger was compensated for sharing it.[10] This limitation was added after the Senate Judiciary Committee expressed concern that the original version could allow removal requests based on incidental appearances.[11] Avoiding liability for a fleeting background appearance is reasonable, but thirty percent is a poor estimate for whether content invades a child’s privacy. A parent’s account could consist primarily of fashion or fitness content and occasionally include intimate videos about a child. Those posts might comprise less than thirty percent of the parent’s social-media content and still cause more harm than hundreds of routine family videos.
This thirty-percent threshold may also create uncertainty. Unlike California’s Family Code, which provides a monthly period and a method for measuring a child’s appearances in social media content, SB 1247 refers broadly to thirty percent of a person’s “content shared on social media platforms.”[12] The bill does not specify the relevant period or how content across several platforms should be counted.
The compensation requirement creates an additional problem. SB 1247 defines “paid content” as content for which the vlogger receives compensation and limits the right to request removal to that content.[13] Thus, an intimate video posted before an account became profitable may be unprotected, while an identical compensated video may be removable. Compensation matters when determining whether a child is owed earnings, but it should not determine whether the former child influencer can remove harmful content from his or her online history.
Minnesota provides a useful alternative. Its content creation statute uses a thirty-percent threshold to determine when children deserve compensation for their appearance in content.[14] However, the statute’s removal provision is not limited by that threshold. Instead, it requires a person who posted the content to remove it when requested by either a child depicted in the content who is at least thirteen years old or an adult who was depicted in the content as a minor.[15]
California does not need to adopt a right to unlimited removal. Instead, SB 1247 could protect children who briefly appear in content without requiring them to appear in a certain percentage of the video before they can request removal. For example, the Legislature could allow removal when the identified content reveals sensitive personal information, creates a substantial risk of harassment or embarrassment, or was produced primarily to depict or discuss the child. California could also follow Minnesota by separating the right to remove content from the rules determining whether the child qualifies for compensation.
SB 1247 recognizes the important principle that a parent’s decision to chronicle a child’s life online can shape that child’s identity after childhood. The bill properly gives former child influencers a remedy against family members who profited from the child’s online presence. However, by imposing economic conditions on a privacy right, California protects children who are central to a family’s profitability while excluding others who may suffer equal or greater harm.
Romi Hera is a Second Year Law Student at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law and a Staff Editor at the Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal. She has a strong interest in psychology, while her primary legal interest is real estate law.
[1] Ellen Walker, Nothing Is Protecting Child Influencers from Exploitation, WIRED (Aug. 25, 2022, 9:00 AM), https://www.wired.com/story/child-influencers-exploitation-legal-protection/.
[2] Stacey B. Steinberg, Sharenting: Children’s Privacy in the Age of Social Media, 66 Emory L.J. 839, 842–44 (2017).
[3] S.B. 1247, 2025–2026 Reg. Sess. § 1 (Cal. 2026) (enrolled Aug. 30, 2026).
[4] Id. § 1.
[5] Id. § 1.
[6] Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22581(a)(1) (West 2026).
[7] Id. § 22581(b)(2).
[8] Cal. Fam. Code §§ 6652–6653 (West 2026).
[9] Id. § 6651.
[10] S.B. 1247, 2025–2026 Reg. Sess. § 1 (Cal. 2026).
[11] S. Judiciary Comm., Bill Analysis of S.B. 1247, 2025–2026 Reg. Sess., at 6 (Cal. Apr. 21, 2026).
[12] Compare S.B. 1247, 2025–2026 Reg. Sess. § 1 (Cal. 2026), with Cal. Fam. Code §§ 6650(f), 6651(a)(1)–(2) (West 2026).
[13] S.B. 1247, 2025–2026 Reg. Sess. § 1 (Cal. 2026).
[14] Minn. Stat. § 181A.13, subdivs. 1(a)(1), 3(a) (West 2026).
[15] Id. subdiv. 5.
