Gaming - Extensions of Credit, Penalties, Player Protections, and Distribution of Proceeds - Alterations
HB1453, titled the Child Influencers Protection Act, creates a new set of rules for vloggers who post video content on social media and feature minor children. If a vlogger earns platform-based compensation or at least 10 cents per view during the prior 12 months, and a child appears in at least 30% of the creator’s content in a 30-day period, the vlogger must compensate the child. The bill requires those earnings to be placed into a separate trust for the child’s benefit, payable when the child turns 18, with the amount tied to the gross earnings attributable to the content in which the child appears.
The bill also gives adults who were featured as minors in a vlogger’s content on or after October 1, 2025, the right to request permanent deletion of that content. Social media platforms receiving such a request must take reasonable steps to permanently delete the material, and contracts between vloggers and platforms must notify the platform of the child’s deletion rights. In addition, the bill amends Maryland’s child labor law so that work performed by a minor child that is required to be compensated under this new subtitle is not exempted as ordinary work in a parent-owned business.
The bill’s impact would be to add a new regulatory framework in the Business Regulation Article for monetized family or child-focused social media content, while also modifying the Labor and Employment Article to ensure these children are treated differently from other minors working in family businesses. It would create new obligations for vloggers, business entities, and social media platforms, and it would likely affect content creators who monetize videos featuring their children or other minors.
The overall sentiment reflected in the bill text is protective and child-centered, with the legislation aiming to address compensation and privacy concerns for minors used in monetized online content. Because there were no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no direct evidence of support or opposition from hearings or floor action. The bill appears to be framed as a consumer- and labor-protection measure rather than a punitive one, but it could raise practical concerns for creators and platforms about compliance, earnings allocation, and content deletion procedures.
Notable points of contention would likely include how to calculate the portion of earnings attributable to a child’s appearance, whether the 30% content threshold is workable, and how far social media platforms must go to satisfy the “reasonable steps” deletion requirement. Another likely issue is the scope of the law—specifically, whether it reaches only monetized vloggers and business entities, and how it interacts with family content, parental rights, and existing child labor exemptions.
HB1453 would add a new Subtitle 10 to the Business Regulation Article governing “Social Media Vloggers,” requiring compensation and trust arrangements for certain minors featured in monetized video content and creating a deletion right for adults who were featured as minors. It would also amend Labor and Employment § 3-203(4) to exclude from the ordinary child-labor exemption work by a minor child that must be compensated under the new vlogger subtitle, thereby integrating social-media earnings into Maryland’s child labor framework.
The bill is generally framed in a protective, pro-child manner, focusing on compensation for minors and control over their online image once they become adults. No committee testimony or votes were provided, so there is no documented public record here of support or opposition. Based on the text alone, the measure appears intended to remedy perceived gaps in existing labor and privacy law for child influencers.
Likely points of contention include the earnings threshold that triggers coverage, the requirement that a child appear in at least 30% of content within a 30-day period, and the mechanics of determining what share of gross earnings is attributable to a child’s appearance. Social media platforms may object to the deletion mandate and contract-notice requirement, while vloggers and family content creators may raise concerns about administrative burden, privacy, and the bill’s reach into family-produced content. The bill also raises questions about enforcement and how trusts would be administered for multiple children.