A small but growing number of states now require parents who feature their kids in monetized online video to set aside a share of the earnings in a trust the child can access as an adult. Only Illinois and California have such laws in force as of this writing, and both apply only when specific pay and screen-time thresholds are met.
Most families posting photos or videos of their kids online are not covered by any earnings-trust law at all. The rules that exist are narrow by design: they target cases where a minor's image is a recurring, compensated part of a parent's or guardian's content business, not the occasional family video. Two states have built out real mechanisms so far, and federal regulators have separately tightened rules on how children's data can be used for advertising.
Which states have a child-influencer earnings law right now?
Illinois was first. Amendments to the state's Child Labor Law of 2024 took effect July 1, 2024, and apply when at least 30% of a vlogger's compensated video content over a 30-day period includes a minor's likeness, name, or photograph. California followed a few months later: Governor Gavin Newsom signed AB 1880, which extends the state's existing Coogan Law for child actors to online content creators, on September 26, 2024, alongside a companion measure, SB 764.
Neither law covers every parent with a camera. Both are built around a threshold — Illinois measures how much of the content features the child, California's framework builds on entertainment-industry rules already written for paid child performers.
How much money actually has to be set aside?
Under the Illinois statute, a parent or guardian whose vlogging work meets the 30%-content threshold must set aside gross earnings equal to at least half of the percentage of content that includes the minor, held by a bank or corporate fiduciary until the child turns 18 or is legally emancipated. The threshold applies to minors under age 16.
California's AB 1880 sets its own trust requirement for young content creators, building on the Coogan Law model of setting aside a defined share of a minor's earnings — with the governor's office citing figures in that range when the bill was signed. Families working across both states, or working with brands based in either, should read the actual statutory language rather than a summary, since the calculation methods differ.
| State | Law | Age covered | Trigger | In effect since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Illinois | Child Labor Law of 2024, vlogging provisions | Under 16 | Child appears in 30%+ of paid content in a 30-day window | July 1, 2024 |
| California | AB 1880 / SB 764 | Minors, per Coogan Law framework | Paid online content creation involving a minor | Signed Sept. 26, 2024 |
What happens if a parent doesn't set the money aside?
Illinois built enforcement around the child rather than a state agency: the law gives the child a private right of action against the parent or guardian who failed to fund the trust, which in practice means a claim can only be brought once that child reaches adulthood. There is no state office actively auditing family channels for compliance while the child is still a minor.
That structure is one reason advocates and family-law attorneys describe these laws as a floor, not a monitoring system. A parent who never sets up the trust is not likely to face a regulator at the child's age 10 — the recourse belongs to the child later, if they choose to use it.
What did federal regulators just change about children's data?
Separately from the state earnings laws, the Federal Trade Commission finalized amendments to the Children's Online Privacy Protection Rule on January 16, 2025. The updated rule requires operators to get separate, opt-in parental consent before sharing a child's personal information with third parties for targeted advertising, and it sets limits on how long children's data can be retained. That rule governs how platforms handle data collected from children under 13 generally — it is not specific to family content channels, but it shapes the advertising and data environment those channels operate in.
COPPA itself, administered by the FTC, has long required verifiable parental consent before a site or app aimed at kids collects personal information from a child. The January 2025 update narrows how that data can then be used commercially.
What's the honest bottom line for a family posting kid content?
What the laws show: two states have written specific, checkable rules — a content-percentage threshold in Illinois, a Coogan-Law-style trust requirement in California — and federal regulators have tightened consent rules around monetizing children's data more broadly. What state lawmakers and children's-advocacy groups recommend: treat a child's earnings as the child's money from the start, in writing, even where no law requires it yet. What remains a family's call: how much to feature a child on a monetized channel at all, and how to talk with that child, as they get older, about whether they want to keep appearing in it.
Is my state one of the two with a law?
Only Illinois and California have enacted earnings-trust requirements specific to child content creators as of this writing; other states have introduced similar bills that have not yet become law, so it's worth checking current status before assuming coverage.
For families outside those two states, the practical takeaway from both statutes is the same even without a legal mandate: a written record of what a channel earns, and what share is attributable to a child's appearance in it, is straightforward to keep and hard to reconstruct later. Neither law requires a lawyer to set up a basic trust or custodial account — a bank can typically open one — but the statutory language is worth reading directly if a family's content crosses state lines or involves brand contracts, since the details of who counts as the responsible adult vary by statute.
For a related family perspective, read What COPPA actually covers when your child under 13 signs up for an app.