Home » Features Articles, Juris Features

How One California Law is Causing an Influencer Exodus

by

By: Bianca Ortalano, Senior Editor

Photo courtesy of Unsplash

Since the birth of Youtube, Instagram, and Tiktok, people have found a way to use social media to support themselves.1 The Influencer industry is worth an estimated $250 billion dollars today, with this figure expected to double by 2027.2 The abundance of opportunity and accessibility to the industry allows anyone to try their hand at influencing without the need for fancy equipment or sponsorships early on. Although becoming a nano-influencer (1,000-10,000 followers) or micro-influencer (10,000-100,000) may be easily attainable, few reach the level of a mega-influencer, amassing over one million followers.3 Influencers such as Mr. Beast, the Paul Brothers, Addison Rae, or Mark Rober have found themselves to be a household name.4 But another type of influencer has been rapidly gaining in popularity—the family vlogger.5

Family vloggers document “their daily life through video blogs and posts,” with content frequently involving “prank videos, pregnancy and gender reveal announcements, product reviews, and family updates, as well as sponsored content earning thousands of dollars per month.”6 Despite the success of many family influencers, an inherent danger unique to this style of influencing is the threat of exploitation of children. Oftentimes children’s privacy and autonomy is violated for the sake of “entertainment.”7 Some family vloggers go even further and end up abusing the children their very platform was built upon, with several parents having been arrested following the exposure of their abuse.8 For example Machelle Hobson of the “Fantastic Adventures” Youtube channel was arrested in 2019 for abusing and torturing her seven adopted children.9 This abuse included “locking the children in a closet for multiple days and violent beatings,” punishing them for the channel’s subpar performance.10 Ruby Franke, another family vlogger with a large following, was arrested in August of 2023 for child abuse.11 Ruby allegedly tied up her children, forced them to do manual labor in the hot sun without water or shoes, and forced or coerced her daughter to jump into a cactus several times.12

Prior to these vloggers’ fall from fame, they seemed like any other family. But abuse is not always physical nor is it always apparent—parental financial abuse is a complex issue where parents use money to take advantage over their children who are often minors.13 Financial abuse may be difficult to identify due to its “invisible” nature and the common lack of understanding and minimal access to finances that children hold.14 Despite the recent development of family vloggers, the monetization and exploitation of children is nothing new in the entertainment industry.15 One California law, however, is attempting to stop child financial abuse and exploitation.16 Cal Fam Code § 6752 dictates that employers of minors who are involved in entertainment contracts shall set aside 15% of that minor’s gross earnings to be held in trust for the benefit of that minor.17 At first glance, this statute appears to be doing exactly as it intended to—stop financial exploitation. However, § 6752 also assigns the role of trustee to at least one of the child’s parents or legal guardians.18 Therefore, the person that holds the most power over the child is still the one entrusted with the child’s earnings. There are additional guidelines in place, such as requiring an annual accounting of the trust and imparting fiduciary responsibilities on the trustee, but there is still leeway in the rule that can help facilitate further abuse.19

Despite these safeguards in place, eagle-eyed fans have noticed a concerning trend in influencers moving out of California just as this statute took effect.20 The timing of family influencers fleeing the state raises the question of whether or not this California statute was the last straw. Some of these influencers include Brittany Xavier and Savannah and Cole Labrant, with both families leaving California behind for a new life in Tennessee.21 Xavier began her social media presence as a fashion blogger before turning her focus to family content creation.22 Xavier also cites health concerns after discovering mold in her California home as the reason for her quick move.23 In comparison, the Labrant family’s move to Tennessee did occur prior to the enactment of § 6752.24 But the family finds themselves experiencing similar rumors after explaining that their move was based on wanting a “slower pace of life.”25 Regardless of their true motivations, the recent migratory behaviors of influencers invites skepticism regarding the effectiveness of § 6752 in protecting minors.

§ 6752 itself was enacted to fill the gap left by the Coogan Law.26 The Coogan Law, named after child actor Jackie Coogan, first went into effect in California in 1939.27 Jackie was a very popular child actor in the 1920’s, finding fame in Charlie Chaplin’s film “The Kid.”28 After turning 21 years old and discovering that his mother stole all of his earnings, Jackie sued his mother and his manager.29 Prior to Jackie’s lawsuit, under California law, a minor’s earnings belonged only to their parents.30 Jackie’s activism in protecting himself led to the creation of the Coogan Law, which is very similar to that of § 6752 but was not very effective in its preliminary form due to many loopholes that individuals could take advantage of.31 Even after several iterations, the Coogan Law still excluded content creators from its list of protected individuals, which § 6752 specifically targets given the rise in influencer careers.32 Since the Coogan Law’s initial adoption, comparable laws have popped up in New York, Illinois, Louisiana, and New Mexico with each state requiring different trust accounts to be opened and other thresholds to be met.33 Like most laws, there is still room for improvement and greater protections for minors in the entertainment industry—especially those involved in influencing or family vlogging. But Cal Fam Code § 6752 is a step in the right direction, allowing kids to keep what they earn and holding greedy parents at bay.

  1.  Matt Craig, Zoya Hasan, Alexandra S. Levine, and Alexandra York, The creator economy is growing fast—and growing up, Forbes, (March 4, 2025), https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevenbertoni/2024/10/28/top-creators-2024-the-influencers-turning-buzz-into-billions/  ↩︎
  2. Id. ↩︎
  3.  Kristen Bousquet, What’s An Influencer And How Can I Make Money As One?, Forbes, (July 14, 2024), https://www.forbes.com/sites/kristenbousquet/article/how-to-become-an-influencer/  ↩︎
  4.  Matt Craig, Zoya Hasan, Alexandra S. Levine, and Alexandra York, The creator economy is growing fast—and growing up, Forbes, (March 4, 2025), https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevenbertoni/2024/10/28/top-creators-2024-the-influencers-turning-buzz-into-billions/ ↩︎
  5.  Rachel Caitlin Abrams, Family Influencing in the Best Interests of the Child, Chicago Journal of International Law, 99 (Summer 2023), https://cjil.uchicago.edu/sites/default/files/2023-06/2ChiJIntlLOnline97.pdf ↩︎
  6.  Id. at 99-100 ↩︎
  7.  Id. at 100 ↩︎
  8.  Id. at 99 ↩︎
  9.  Id. ↩︎
  10.  Id. ↩︎
  11.  Mattea Bubalo, Who is Ruby Franke, the parenting influencer jailed for child abuse?, BBC, (Feb. 21, 2024), https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-66719859  ↩︎
  12.  Kerry Breen, Ruby Franke and Jodi Hildebrandt sentenced to up to 30 years in prison in child abuse case, CBS News, (Feb. 20, 2024), https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ruby-franke-jodi-hildebrandt-sentenced-child-abuse-youtube-eight-passengers/  ↩︎
  13.  Rachel Salmon, October 2022: Financial Abuse in a Child/Parent Relationship, Syracuse University, (Oct. 17, 2022), https://financialaid.syr.edu/financialliteracy/2022/10/17/october-2022-financial-abuse-in-a-child-parent-relationship/  ↩︎
  14.  Outreach Team, What is Financial Child Abuse?, Dawson Place, (Nov. 4, 2021), https://www.dawsonplace.org/what-is-financial-child-abuse/  ↩︎
  15.  Jessica Krieg, THERE’S NO BUSINESS LIKE SHOW BUSINESS: CHILD ENTERTAINERS AND THE LAW, U. PA. JOURNAL OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT LAW, (2004), https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1173&context=jbl ↩︎
  16.  Cal. Fam. Code § 6752 (Deering) ↩︎
  17. Id. ↩︎
  18. Id. ↩︎
  19. Id. ↩︎
  20.  Konstancija Gasaitytė, “Girl, we know why you left.” Is this the real reason influencers flee California?, Cybernews, (Feb. 21, 2025), https://cybernews.com/editorial/child-content-creator-law-california-influencers/  ↩︎
  21.  Rebecca Jennings, Are Family Vloggers Really Leaving California to Avoid Paying Their Kids?, Vulture, (March 5, 2025), https://www.vulture.com/article/family-vloggers-california-child-labor-laws.html  ↩︎
  22.  Simran Pasricha, Are Family Vloggers Leaving California To Escape New Child Labour Laws? TikTok Thinks So, Pedestrian, (Feb. 26, 2025), https://www.pedestrian.tv/online/family-vloggers-leaving-california/  ↩︎
  23. Id. ↩︎
  24. Id. ↩︎
  25. Id. ↩︎
  26. Id. ↩︎
  27.  Screen Actors Guild – American Federation of Television and Radio Artists, Coogan Law, SAG AFTRA, https://www.sagaftra.org/membership-benefits/young-performers/coogan-law (last visited April 18, 2025). ↩︎
  28. Id. ↩︎
  29. Id. ↩︎
  30. Id. ↩︎
  31. Id. ↩︎
  32. Simran Pasricha, Are Family Vloggers Leaving California To Escape New Child Labour Laws? TikTok Thinks So, Pedestrian, (Feb. 26, 2025), https://www.pedestrian.tv/online/family-vloggers-leaving-california/ ↩︎
  33. Screen Actors Guild – American Federation of Television and Radio Artists, Coogan Law, SAG AFTRA, https://www.sagaftra.org/membership-benefits/young-performers/coogan-law (last visited April 18, 2025). ↩︎
Tags: ,,,,