Bill would add protections for children used as content by social media influencers
A video Rep. Katie Zolnikov, R-Billings, saw before the session worried her.
It dealt with internet safety for children, Zolnikov said, and while she doesn't have a social media account, the video originated on Instagram and led her down a rabbit hole. She started looking through the rest of the account and began learning a little more about what can happen when parents post photos and videos of their children on the internet.
That video pushed her to sponsor House Bill 392, which is being called the Child Digital Protection Act. The bill would give legal protections to minors for their appearance in profitable family video content, protections for their privacy and an ability to protect revenue they help generate.
The bill had little trouble passing the House before transmittal— there hasn't been a single vote cast against it on the floor or in committee — and is currently in the Senate Energy, Technology and Federal Relations committee.
Her research also led her to an organization called Quit Clicking Kids, which has supported similar legislation in other states and spurred her to carry the bill, she said.
'Quit Clicking Kids is centered around the idea that when influencers use their kids for the majority of their content, the kids are the ones generating interest and revenue for that account and deserve to be compensated as such,' the organization's mission statement says. 'These children also deserve the right to privacy, something that they have been cruelly denied once they are continuously featured on public social media accounts.'
Simply put, some social media influencers use their kids for content on popular platforms like TikTok and Instagram. During a Senate hearing on Tuesday, some examples Zolnikov used were potty training for young kids and first-time bra shopping for girls.
The bill addresses several problems that could come up. For one, as a child grows up, they may not want videos of them on the internet. Content creators, in this case their parents or guardians, can profit from those videos and the bill gives children an ability to have some of that revenue saved for them later in their life.
'As legislators, we aim to protect our kids from a lot of different things. We don't let them go in a coal mine anymore,' Zolnikov said in an interview with the Daily Montanan. 'This is just the next version of that.'
The bill does several things. For parents creating content that reaches certain thresholds of monetization, a trust fund would be created for the child, set at $0.10 per video view. It would also give children the 'Right to be forgotten,' which allows for requests to remove content involving minor children after they reach the age of majority.
The $0.10 is in line with other state bills, Zolnikov said, adding that it 'might be appropriate' to look at the amount in future legislative sessions.
She also added this hasn't been an issue in Montana yet, but that's part of the point of the legislation. She did cite examples from other states, as well as a book — 'The House of My Mother,' which explains one woman's story of abuse stemming from a popular family vlog.
'I don't want a horror story to be able to point to,' Zolnikov said in an interview. 'Because that means there's a horror story.'
The bill gives options for children to seek legal remedies for violations of the law. Additionally, the bill would require parents to maintain documentation of the name and age of children involved in content creation, the number of videos they appear in, compensation from videos their parents received, and the amount of money deposited into the trust fund.
'It's not a crime to put pictures and videos of your children on the internet,' Zolnikov said in a Feb. 12 House Energy, Technology and Federal Relations committee hearing. 'It does become an ethical dilemma when all of a sudden you are making a lot of money.'
Monetization of video content on social media can be big business. TikTok, for example, has what's called the 'Creator Fund,' which has certain eligibility requirements — 10,000 followers and 100,000 views over the last 30 days.
Brands will also pay influencers to market their content.
YouTube works similarly. Larger accounts with more views can add advertisements to their videos and get paid for it.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed two bills into law last year dealing with this issue, and Zolnikov said 14 other states are looking at similar legislation.
Zolnikov said a committee member asked if the bill would impact their ability to post photos of their grandchildren on Facebook.
She clarified it does not and that it only impacts people who are monetizing content featuring their children.
'It's kind of cliche, but everything is changing so quickly, and I don't think, especially in some contexts where there's a lot of older members, that people don't fully grasp how scary it can be,' Zolnikov said. 'That's why I'm passionate about it.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Roy Cooper hints at 2026 Senate run
Former North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper (D) hinted over the weekend that he plans to run for the open U.S. Senate seat in his state during the 2026 election cycle. The popular governor spoke at the N.C. Democratic Party's annual Unity Dinner Saturday night, amid reports that he plans to launch a Senate bid soon. 'Everybody who's planning to run for office next year, please stand up,' Cooper asked the crowd. He then added: 'I'm not sitting down, am I?' The crowd cheered and chanted, 'Run, Roy, run,' according to local reports. Many Democrats have been hoping Cooper would enter the race, after Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) announced he would not run for reelection, after bucking the president and voting against his massive tax and spending bill. The event comes shortly after local reporting surfaced that former Rep. Wiley Nickel (D-N.C.), who launched his campaign for Senate in April, is now mulling whether to suspend his bid and instead run for an open district attorney position in Wake County. Republican National Committee (RNC) Chair Michael Whatley is running on the GOP side, with Trump's endorsement.
The Hill
2 hours ago
- The Hill
Democrats hear some criticism as redistricting talk picks up
Outside groups are raising concerns that Democrats risk violating the Voting Rights Act with redistricting plans, creating a new problem for the party as it seeks to answer GOP efforts to redistrict its way to more power. Democrats say they have to take action to draw new House districts in states they control in response to power plays by a Trump-driven GOP in Texas and other states. But the tit-for-tat has left groups leaving the door open to litigation. They also are making a moral case, arguing Democrats are thwarting the democratic process. 'This is dead wrong from a democracy perspective, I think it's very problematic for Democrats from a political strategic perspective,' explained Dan Vicuna, director of voting and fair representation at Common Cause. California Gov. Gavin Newsom is the only Democratic governor so far to signal he's considering several ways to counter the GOP's efforts in Texas. Speaking to reporters on Friday, Newsom said any move by California 'is predicated on Texas moving forward' with its own redistricting plan, which some have seen as a way for the Lone Star State to make it more likely to hold on to five House seats. Several other Democratic governors, including Govs. Kathy Hochul of New York, Phil Murphy of New Jersey and JB Pritzker of Illinois have left the door open to possibly changing their maps. The GOP may also not be done. The White House is reportedly pushing Missouri to consider redrawing its map. Civil rights and voting groups are worried actions by both parties could undermine or weaken the political power of historically marginalized minority communities. The issue is a thorny one for Democrats, who have positioned themselves as the prodemocracy party and championed racial justice initiatives. At the same time, Democratic states just like Republican states have been sued by civil rights groups over Voting Rights Act violations. Both Democrats and Republicans have also been found guilty of creating gerrymandered maps. 'We have sued both Democrats and Republicans on these issues,' said Thomas A. Saenz, president and general counsel of Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund. 'So yes, we are concerned that when leaders of either party seek to take maximum advantage, partisan advantage of redistricting, they often neglect, if not ignore, the imperatives of the Voting Rights Act with respect to reliably Democratic voting groups.' Some groups are also frustrated given efforts by blue states to move beyond gerrymandering. 'Independent commissions like the gold standard in California were created specifically to avoid what's being considered here, which is voting maps drawn for the sole purpose of protecting incumbent politicians and political party interests to the exclusion of community needs and community feedback,' Vicuna said. California Common Cause was intimately involved in the creation of California's independent commission. It could be difficult for some Democratic-held states to answer Texas. Several would likely need to change their state constitution and work around their respective redistricting commissions. Should the Lone Star State craft new House lines, John Bisognano, president of the National Democratic Redistricting Committee and its affiliates, in a statement said they would be met 'with a wall of resistance and a wave of legal challenges.' His statement did not address Democratic-led states mulling their own midcycle redistricting. Democrats argue that if Republicans are headed down that road, nothing should be off the table for them as well. 'Republicans should be careful what they ask for,' Rep. Suzan DelBene (D-Wash.), chair of the House Democrats' campaign arm, told The Hill in a statement. 'And if they go down this path? Absolutely folks are going to respond across the country. We're not going to be sitting back with one hand tied behind our back while Republicans try to undermine the voices of the American people.' Democrats are also leaning into the issue of democracy, saying the longevity of the country is at stake if the party does not respond. Newsom painted the situation in grim terms, saying on Friday, 'I believe that the people of the state of California understand what's at stake. If we don't put a stake into the heart of this administration, there may not be an election in 2028.' 'We can sit back and act as if we have some moral superiority and watch this 249, almost 250-year experiment be washed away,' Newsom said. 'We are not going to allow that to happen. We have agency, we can shape the future.' Civil rights and voting-focused groups, however, are concerned about the ramifications midcycle redistricting could have moving forward, including the possibility of what was once considered a decennial process after each U.S. census turning into a cyclical issue. 'One of the concerns that we have is, even if blue states have power and have a majority in their legislature to redraw maps, our concern is that this could set a bad precedent, because those states could, at the same time, flip in the future,' said Jose Barrera Novoa, vice president of the far west for the League of United Latin American Citizens. 'And the same thing is going to happen where … other parties are going to look to redraw the map midcycle or even quarterly. Who knows?' he asked. 'It's all hypothetical, yet it's still very possible.' Not only could a potential redistricting tit-for-tat raise questions over whether this could be repeated in the future, experts also worry about the financial toll it could take on their resources and voters themselves. 'These are judges managing these cases, hearing these cases. Many of these people are paid out by state funds, and federal cases, of course, are also paid by voters directly,' explained Celina Stewart, CEO of the League of Women Voters, noting cases that use taxpayer funds. 'Do we really want to spend this time doing this highly unusual activity when we're all going to have to pay for it?'
Boston Globe
2 hours ago
- Boston Globe
It's a year of rapid change, except when it comes to Trump's approval numbers, AP-NORC polling finds
Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Advertisement But even those shifts are within a relatively narrow range, which is typical for Trump. Advertisement Those long-term trends underscore that Trump has many steadfast opponents. But loyal supporters also help explain why views of the president are hard to change even as he pursues policies that most Americans do not support, using an approach that many find abrasive. Trump has not had a traditional honeymoon period in his second term. He did not in his first, either. The recent slippage on immigration is particularly significant because that issue was a major strength for Trump in the 2024 election. Earlier in his second term, it was also one of the few areas where he was outperforming his overall approval. In March, about half of US adults approved of his handling of immigration. But the July AP-NORC poll found his approval on immigration at 43 percent, in line with his overall approval rating. Other recent polls show growing discontent with Trump's approach to immigration. Advertisement 'I understand wanting to get rid of illegal immigrants, but the way that's being done is very aggressive,' said Donovan Baldwin, 18, of Asheboro, N.C., who did not vote in the 2024 election. 'And that's why people are protesting because it comes off as aggression. It's not right.' Ratings of Trump's handling of the economy, which were more positive during his first term, have been persistently negative in his second term. The July poll found that few Americans think Trump's policies have benefited them so far. Even if he is not a fan of everything Trump has done so far, Brian Nichols, 58, of Albuquerque, is giving him the benefit of the doubt. Nichols, who voted for Trump in 2024, likes what he is seeing from the president overall, though he has his concerns both on style and substance, particularly Trump's social media presence and his on-again, off-again tariffs. Nichols also does not like the push to eliminate federal agencies such as the Education Department. Despite his occasional disagreements with Trump, though, Nichols said he wants to give the president space to do his job, and he trusts the House and Senate, now run by Republicans, to act as a safeguard. 'We put him into office for a reason, and we should be trusting that he's doing the job for the best of America,' Nichols said. Trump has spent the past six months pushing far-reaching and often unpopular policies. Earlier this year, Americans were bracing themselves for higher prices as a result of his approach to tariffs. The July poll found that most people think Trump's tax and spending bill will benefit the wealthy, while few think it will pay dividends for the middle class or people like them. Advertisement Discomfort with individual policies may not translate into wholesale changes in views of Trump, though. Those have largely been constant through years of turmoil, with his favorability rating staying within a 10-percentage-point range through the COVID-19 pandemic, a felony conviction, and attempted assassination. To some of his supporters, the benefits of his presidency far outweigh the costs. Kim Schultz, 62, of Springhill, Fla., said she is thrilled with just about everything Trump is doing as president, particularly his aggressive moves to deport anyone living in the country illegally. Even if Trump's tariffs eventually take effect and push prices up, she said she will not be alarmed. 'I've always had the opinion that if the tariffs are going to cost me a little bit more here and there, I don't have a problem with that,' she said. Across the country, Hildenbrand dislikes Trump's personality and his penchant for insults, including those directed at foreign leaders. But he thinks Trump is making things happen. 'More or less, to me, he's showing that he's on the right track,' he said. 'I'm not in favor of Trump's personality, but I am in favor of what he's getting done.'
