Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Docuseries Highlights Need for Legal Protections for Kid Influencers

News

Docuseries Highlights Need for Legal Protections for Kid Influencers

child holding smartphone

Getty Images/Keiko Iwabuchi

A new Netflix docuseries explores the unseen complexities and dark possibilities of child influencing in our modern internet age, raising urgent questions and highlighting the critical need for legal protections for kid influencers once their internet presence turns into work—a full-time job that, at times, financially supports their families.

Released last week, “ Bad Influence: The Dark Side of Kidfluencing ” shares how Youtube star Piper Rockelle—who began posting videos at eight years old and garnered 12 million subscribers and about 1.87 billion views—and her “Squad” of fellow pre-teen social media influencers worked and lived in a toxic environment under Rockelle's "momager", Tiffany Smith, and Smith's boyfriend, Hunter Hill.


The three-part exposé dives into the harsh, manipulative, and complex working conditions that “Squad” members experienced while working with Smith and Hill, who created a physically, mentally, and emotionally unsafe environment for the underage content creators.

In 2022, eleven former “Squad” members filed a complaint against Smith and Hill for “emotional, verbal, physical, and, at times, sexual abuse” when they were active members of the Squad. The child abuse lawsuit was settled in October 2024 for $1.85 million—incredibly short of the $22 million that was originally sought—with all parties specifically disclaiming any liability.

All former “Squad” members who have spoken out are still intensely impacted by the trauma caused by Smith and Hunter, whether their online careers have been irreparably damaged and/or they are experiencing long-term post-traumatic stress. Attorney Matt Sarelson shared in the documentary that, “In many ways, a lawsuit is where justice goes to die.”

The viral series explains how managers of influencers have been able to circumvent child labor laws and protections put in place for children in the entertainment industry.

“These abuse allegations against Tiffany, which include battery and child labor violations, are not unique to the Piper Rockelle/Tiffany case,” Lorenz said in the series. “These are common forms of abuse that are rampant in the ‘kidfluencer’ industry.

Several culture experts have criticized the lack of connection between many political figures and pop culture, emphasizing the importance of understanding pop culture and acknowledging its significant impact on individuals and groups.

“‘Kidfluencing’ right now is the wild, wild west. I mean, there’s no regulations that keep these influencers safe,” said Brandon Stewart, Content Strategist, CEO of Brandon Studios

“It’s an unregulated frontier of the entertainment industry,” shared Attorney Jeremiah D. Graham. “When a child is treated like this, they shouldn’t have to go out and hire private attorneys in order to vindicate their rights.”

“The government has absolutely no appetite to implement any sort of meaningful regulations in this industry. They still treat this industry as a joke,” said Lorenz. “Lawmakers are often 70 to 80 years old. They don’t take this world seriously at all. They make fun of it. They mock it…And until we start taking this industry seriously until we start viewing influencing as labor, these kids are screwed.”

Legal Protections for Child and Teenage Influencers

Quit Clicking Kids, founded by Chris McCarty, who was featured in the docuseries, advocates for legislation that protects the well-being of child influencers. The initiative looks to expand protections for child actors to child influencers.

In 2022, McCarty worked with Washington State Rep. Emily Wicks (D) to craft and introduce HB 2023. The bill would require guardians to set aside a percentage of social media earnings for children featured in the content and, once they reach the age of 18, allow former child influencers to request the removal of content in which they appear. In 2023, the bill was reintroduced as HB 1627 by Washington State Rep. Kristine Reeves (D) with no changes.

“I think one of the biggest misconceptions is not seeing it as work, especially for the kids,” commented McCarty. “It is very much not a hobby for many of these influencers. It is a job. And in some cases, it’s the primary or even the only source of income for these families. That has the potential to place an undue burden on these children to create content.”

In 2023, Governor J.B. Pritzker (D) signed SB 1782 into law, making Illinois the first state to implement financial protections for child influencers.

In 2024, California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) signed two bills that protect child and teenage influencers from financial abuse:

AB 1880 expanded the Coogan Law —which requires employers of child performers and creators to save at least 15% of their gross earnings in a trust, accessible once the child reaches adulthood—to also financially protect underaged content creators.

SB 764 requires that parents or guardians of minors featured in monetized online content set aside a percentage of their earnings in trust accounts.

Despite the growing call for legal protections, the pressing question remains:

How can we increase safety regulations to protect the entire well-being, not just the financial well-being, of child and teenage influencers?

Currently, advocates call for educating audiences and reforming internet culture to be more skeptical about child-centered content and to be more concerned for the well-being of children featured in monetized content. Others point to social media platforms, stating that it is their responsibility to rethink their business models and prioritize the safety of children.

“We really just need to educate people. We need to change the culture. We need to change norms around parenting,” stated Lorenz. “The fundamental problem is the business model of these platforms and these capitalist incentives.”

Belén Dumont is a freelance reporter and associate editor at The Fulcrum.


Read More

Close up of a person on their phone at night.

From “Patriot Games” to The Hunger Games, how spectacle, social media, and political culture risk normalizing violence and eroding empathy.

Getty Images, Westend61

The Capitol Is Counting on Us to Laugh

When the Trump administration announced the Patriot Games, many people laughed. Selecting two children per state for a nationally televised sports competition looked too much like Suzanne Collins’ Hunger Games to take seriously. But that instinct, to laugh rather than look closer, is one the Capitol is counting on. It has always been easier to normalize violence when it arrives dressed as entertainment or patriotism.

Here’s what I mean: The Hunger Games starts with the reaping, the moment when a Capitol official selects two children, one boy and one girl, to fight to the death against tributes from every other district. The games were created as an annual reminder of a failed rebellion, to remind the districts that dissent has consequences. At first, many Capitol residents saw the games as a just punishment. But sentiments shifted as the spectacle grew—when citizens could bet on winners, when a death march transformed into a beauty pageant, when murder became a pathway to celebrity.

Keep ReadingShow less
Technology and Presidential Election

Anthropic’s Mythos AI raises alarms about surveillance, deepfakes, and democracy. Why urgent AI regulation is needed as U.S. policy struggles to keep pace.

Getty Images, Douglas Rissing

How the Latest in AI Threatens Democracy

On April 24, America got a wake-up call from Anthropic, one of the nation’s leading artificial intelligence companies. It announced a new AI tool, called Mythos, that can identify flaws in computer networks and software systems that, as Politico puts it, “Even the brightest human minds have been unable to identify.”

A machine smarter than the “brightest human minds” sounds like a line from a dystopian science fiction movie. And if that weren’t scary enough, we now have a government populated by people who seem oblivious to the risks AI poses to democracy and humanity itself.

Keep ReadingShow less
Who’s Responsible When AI Causes Harm?: Unpacking the Federal AI Liability Framework Debate
the letters are made up of different colors

Who’s Responsible When AI Causes Harm?: Unpacking the Federal AI Liability Framework Debate

This nonpartisan policy brief, written by an ACE fellow, is republished by The Fulcrum as part of our partnership with the Alliance for Civic Engagement and our NextGen initiative — elevating student voices, strengthening civic education, and helping readers better understand democracy and public policy.

Key takeaways

  • The U.S. has no national AI liability law. Instead, a patchwork of state laws has emerged which has resulted in legal protections being dependent on where an individual resides.
  • It’s often unclear who is legally responsible when AI causes harm. This gap leaves many people with no clear path to seek help.
  • In March 2026, the White House and Congress introduced major proposals to establish a federal standard, but there is significant disagreement about whether that standard should prioritize protecting innovation or protecting people harmed by AI systems.

Background: A Patchwork of State Laws

Without a national AI law, states have been filling in the gaps on their own. The result is an uneven landscape where a person’s legal protections depend entirely on which state they live in.

Keep ReadingShow less
An illustration of a person standing alone on a platform and looking at speech bubbles.

A bold critique of modern democracy and rising authoritarian ideas, exploring how AI-powered swarm digital democracy could redefine participation and governance.

Getty Images, Andriy Onufriyenko

The Only Radical Move Forward: Swarm Digital Democracy

We are increasingly told that democracy has failed and that its time has passed. The evidence proffered is everywhere, we are told: Gridlock, captured institutions, performative elections, a public that senses, correctly, that its voice rarely translates into real power. Into this vacuum step dystopic movements like the Dark Enlightenment and harder strains of Right-wing populism, offering a stark diagnosis and an even starker cure: Abandon the illusion of popular rule and return to forms of authority that are decisive, hierarchical, and unapologetically exclusionary. They present themselves as bold, clear-eyed, rambunctious, alive, and willing to act where others hesitate. And all to save the world from itself.

But this framing depends on a sleight of hand: It assumes that what we have been living under is, in fact, democracy, and that its failures are the failures of democracy itself. That is the first mistake.

Keep ReadingShow less