California child influencer law lets adults force removal of paid videos

California has given former child influencers a legal right to have paid social media content featuring them taken down. Senate Bill 1247 was approved by the governor and chaptered by the Secretary of State on September 30, 2026, as Chapter 1022 of the Statutes of 2026, according to the California legislative record. It takes effect on January 1, 2027, and is one of the most significant US rules yet aimed at monetized family vlogging.

Sen. Steve Padilla (D-San Diego) wrote the law, with Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan as co-author. It adds Sections 6665 through 6667 to the state's Family Code. During the session, the Assembly moved the provisions out of the Business and Professions Code and into the Family Code, the legislative record shows.

The law covers adults aged 18 or older who appeared as minors in paid image or video content. It defines the person who posted that content as a "vlogger": a parent, guardian or family member who was paid to post it, where content featuring the child made up at least 30% of what they shared on social platforms.

How the removal process works

Platforms must offer a clear, conspicuous way for a former child influencer to ask for paid content to be deleted or edited. If the request can't go straight to the vlogger, the platform has three business days to pass it on. The vlogger then has 10 business days to remove the content or edit the person out of it.

Enforcement has real teeth. A former child influencer can sue for actual damages, statutory damages of $3,000 for each day of violation, an injunction, and attorney's fees and costs. When deciding on an injunction, courts must weigh emotional harm or substantial embarrassment, increased harassment or safety risks, loss of control over personal information, and damage to future opportunities.

Padilla argued in April that a generation of children whose lives were posted online "have no way to control their image," as reported by Net Influencer. He said the state should strengthen its privacy protections and hand former child performers control over what was shared of them as children.

Support and opposition

The bill moved through the legislature without a single no vote. It cleared the Senate privacy committee 9-0 and the Judiciary Committee 13-0 in April, passed the Senate floor 39-0 in May, and passed the Assembly 79-0 in August before the Senate concurred 40-0 in Assembly amendments, according to the CalMatters Digital Democracy bill tracker.

Registered supporters included the California chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics, SAG-AFTRA's Child Protection Task Force, Oakland Privacy and the advocacy group Quit Clicking Kids. Former child performer and mental health advocate Alyson Stoner backed the bill in a statement released by Padilla's office, saying it gives children "the legal means to protect it," referring to their own image.

The main opposition came from the Civil Justice Association of California. It objected to the $3,000-a-day penalties and the private right of action, arguing they could invite abusive litigation, according to the bill tracker.

Context

SB 1247 builds on a growing body of child-creator protections. California's SB 764 of 2025, also written by Padilla and known as the Child Content Creator Rights Act, requires certain family vloggers to set aside earnings for minors who appear in at least 30% of their content. AB 1880 extended the state's Coogan Law to minor creators who sign direct contracts with third parties.

Utah passed a similar "right to delete" law in March 2025 after advocacy by Shari Franke, daughter of family vlogger Ruby Franke, who was sentenced in 2024 on four counts of aggravated child abuse. Padilla's office has pointed to the scale of the market as a reason to act, citing Goldman Sachs Research estimates that the influencer economy was worth about $250 billion in 2023 and could reach about $480 billion by 2028.

What it means for creators

Family channels that make money from their children's appearances now carry a potential long-term liability that can surface years after a video is posted. According to a client alert from law firm Nixon Peabody, the removal right applies regardless of whether the vlogger hits the $1,250-a-month earnings threshold that triggers SB 764's compensation rules. That means smaller family creators are covered too, as long as they were paid and meet the 30% content test.

Nixon Peabody advises vloggers to identify which existing paid content may fall under the law and to set up a process that can answer requests inside the 10-business-day window.

What it means for brands

Brands that sponsored family-vlog content, or that license it for their own channels, should expect that some of that material may have to be edited or removed in the future. The statute puts the removal duty on the vlogger and sets procedures for platforms, but it doesn't say what happens to content once its rights have been licensed, transferred or sold to a third party, Nixon Peabody notes. The firm frames that gap mainly as a contract issue.

What it means for agencies

Agencies and studios that package or license family-vlog libraries face the sharpest commercial exposure. Nixon Peabody recommends that deals confirm the creator keeps the rights needed to comply, spell out who handles a takedown or edit, and allocate the cost and risk. A removal request that arrives years after a video was made could cut into a library's availability and value, so the firm says the issue belongs in the original rights negotiation.

What to watch next

Platforms have until January 1 to build compliant request tools, and how prominently they surface them will shape how often the law is used. The first lawsuits will test how courts apply the injunction factors and the per-day damages. Family vloggers should audit their back catalogs now, and agencies and licensees should review existing contracts before the law takes effect.

Why it matters: Family creators now face takedown claims, and damages of up to $3,000 a day, that can arrive years after a video is posted. Anyone buying or licensing family-vlog content needs new contract clauses before January 1, 2027.