Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

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

An illustration of a block with the words, "AI," on it, surrounded by slightly smaller caution signs.

Efficient AI may not mean less energy. The Jevons paradox shows why demand can grow, and why no one can say yet where AI’s real limits will be.

Getty Images, J Studios

The People Selling You the Future Don’t Know It Either

Artificial Intelligence is everywhere and can no longer be avoided. Will there ever be a ceiling for the expansion of this technology? AI companies are not just selling software. The story about the inevitability that AI will have in transforming work, education, medicine, art, government, and daily life is much more profitable. People must accept the transformation or be left behind. They are selling behind a mask of certainty.

The court of public opinion on AI has concluded that this technology is too energy-consuming for the benefits it allegedly brings and the ways many people use it. Therefore, companies have shifted their agendas to presenting efficiency as a solution to the technology’s enormous need for power. Smaller, better models and chips, and more efficient data centers may reduce the energy required for a single text-based request or generated image. If those improvements make AI cheaper to use, it will be invited into more daily life right?

Keep ReadingShow less
AI chip
a computer chip with the letter a on top of it
Photo by Igor Omilaev on Unsplash

We Should Regulate AI to Make It Grow Faster

The debate over artificial intelligence has become divided between two powerful ideas: that we need a “moratorium” to slow AI until we can make it safe, and that regulating AI will slow the innovation we need for our economy and national security. Both concerns are legitimate. But “moratorium” and “slowing AI growth” are divisive terms: they reassure those concerned about AI's safety, economic and environmental consequences while alarming those who see AI competition and national security as urgent priorities. We need a different starting point—meaningful regulation that provides the safeguards necessary to protect people, communities and the environment while creating the conditions for AI to continue growing. The experiences of Europe and China challenge the assumption that regulation must slow AI.

China has combined increasingly detailed, technology-specific AI regulation with substantial government support for AI development. Recent studies provide evidence that this approach can promote innovation. One 2026 study of Chinese companies from 2017 through 2023 found that the creation of national AI innovation and development pilot zones significantly increased corporate digital transformation, in part through increased research and development, human capital and reduced transition costs. Another 2026 study, covering Chinese manufacturing companies from 2014 through 2024, found that the same policy significantly promoted the adoption of intelligent technologies.

Keep ReadingShow less
person reading a computer screen
man using computer inside room

Student-Led AI Initiative Aims to Tackle Misinformation

PRINCETON JUNCTION, NJ — As generative artificial intelligence reshapes the digital landscape, a New Jersey student researcher is using the technology to combat media bias. Shaurya Jindal, an AI researcher and student at West Windsor-Plainsboro High School South, has launched Cogito News, an educational platform designed to build modern media literacy skills.

Cogito News was founded in response to growing concerns about partisan framing and selective sourcing in contemporary journalism. Recognizing that cognitive biases often influence how news is packaged and consumed, Jindal sought to build a tool that helps users critically evaluate the information they encounter daily. The platform's real-world impact and timely relevance were highlighted when Jindal was my guest on The Fulcrum Democracy Forum, an interview series dedicated to civic renewal and examining innovative approaches to strengthening democratic systems.

Keep ReadingShow less
An aerial view of a Flock camera

An aerial view of a Flock camera in Burbank, California. U.S. President Donald Trump expressed support for Flock cameras, saying he likes the AI-powered surveillance technology because of its use by law enforcement, despite concerns that it infringes on privacy.

(Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

Flock Cameras Are Coming Down – but We Need More To Dismantle the Surveillance State

Chances are, you’ve seen one in your neighborhood. Flock cameras have become a major flashpoint for voters in the leadup to the midterms. The concept sounds straight out of 1984 — a network of government-owned cameras that track your movements — it’s no wonder that Americans across party lines are demanding their states and towns sever ties with the controversial company. Surveillance fears are only getting stronger as we enter the AI era.

But the problem isn’t just Flock. These cameras, Automated License Plate Readers or ALPRs to be exact, are a symptom of a larger “surveil first, ask questions later” attitude that has been adopted by local and federal government for decades. In recent years, the federal government has been dramatically expanding the nation’s surveillance infrastructure. This has taken many forms, from facial recognition technology at the airport, to law enforcement monitoring your mail, to the government watching what you’re posting on your personal social media pages. Since April, many Democrats and Republicans in Congress have united to stop what would effectively be a blank check for surveillance via FISA reauthorization, demanding surveillance reforms such as closing the “data broker loophole”, which allows the government to buy Americans’ personal data without a warrant.

Keep ReadingShow less