To amend sections 4109.01 and 4109.06 and to enact sections 1349.10, 4109.23, 4109.231, 4109.232, and 4109.233 of the Revised Code to require vloggers to hold in a trust account a portion of compensation earned from any content featuring minors and to name this act the Kid Influencer Protection Act.
HB547, titled the Kid Influencer Protection Act, would create a new set of rules for Ohio vloggers and online platforms that monetize video content featuring minors. The bill defines key terms such as “vlog,” “vlog compensation,” “publishing minor,” and “vlogging minor,” and requires online platforms to provide itemized statements showing which videos generated compensation and how much was earned. It also requires vloggers to keep detailed annual records when minors appear in compensated content and to provide those records to the minor by March 1 each year.
The core policy change is a financial protection requirement: vloggers must set aside a portion of gross earnings from content featuring a qualifying minor into a trust account for the minor’s benefit, with the amount tied to the minor’s share of screen time. The bill also covers minors who independently run monetized accounts, requiring the account holder to preserve earnings attributable to the minor and either transfer the money to the minor or place it in a trust account. Funds would be held until the minor turns 18 or is emancipated, and the bill creates civil enforcement rights, including actual damages, punitive damages, and attorney’s fees for violations. It also allows former minors to request deletion of certain videos featuring them from platforms that paid the original creator.
In terms of state law impact, HB547 would amend Ohio’s child labor chapter and add new provisions to the Revised Code governing online content monetization involving minors. It would carve vlogging minors out of the general child labor exemptions except as specifically provided, while creating a separate regulatory framework for compensation, recordkeeping, trust accounts, and platform disclosures. The bill would affect vloggers, families operating creator accounts, online platforms that distribute monetization payments, banks and trust companies that hold the required accounts, and minors whose likeness, name, or photograph appears in monetized content.
Because the bill was only introduced and no votes or committee testimony are provided, there is no recorded formal vote history or hearing record to gauge broad legislative sentiment. Based on the text alone, the bill appears protective and consumer-oriented, aiming to prevent exploitation of child influencers and ensure that minors benefit financially from content built around them. The structure suggests an intent to mirror entertainment-industry child earnings protections in the social media context.
The main points of potential contention are likely to be the scope and administrability of the requirements. Questions may arise over how to measure a minor’s share of content, how to calculate the required trust contribution, whether the bill reaches family-run channels and mixed-content accounts fairly, and how burdensome the reporting and deletion obligations would be for platforms and creators. Privacy and free-expression concerns could also emerge around mandatory recordkeeping, disclosure of minors’ identities, and the requirement to remove past content at the request of a former minor.
HB547 would add a new statutory framework in Ohio for monetized online video content involving minors, primarily through new sections in Chapter 4109 and a new disclosure provision in Chapter 1349. It would require vloggers and account holders to track, disclose, and preserve earnings attributable to minors, and it would require trust-account treatment of certain compensation until the minor reaches adulthood or emancipation. The bill would also impose obligations on online platforms to provide itemized compensation statements and would create private rights of action for minors to enforce compliance.
No committee transcript or vote record is available, so there is no direct evidence of legislative debate or recorded support/opposition. The bill’s text reflects a generally protective and pro-child welfare approach, suggesting a favorable policy posture toward safeguarding minors’ earnings and privacy in influencer content. At the same time, the absence of hearing material means any organized support or criticism from stakeholders is not documented in the provided record.
Likely areas of contention include how broadly the bill applies to family creators and mixed-age channels, how difficult it would be to calculate the required trust contribution based on screen time and earnings, and whether the reporting and platform-notice requirements are practical. Creators and platforms may object to administrative burden, while privacy advocates may question the bill’s recordkeeping and disclosure provisions and the feasibility of enforcing deletion requests for past content. The bill also raises possible disputes over who is entitled to compensation when multiple minors appear in the same account or when a minor’s likeness is used in monetized content.