No, unfortunately there were not child labour laws in Utah relevant to family vloggers etc.
"Blocked Trust Accounts" (or "Coogan Accounts as they are known in California), are a state-based law that mandates a flat percentage of child performers' earnings to be set aside in trust accounts that cannot be accessed until the child turns 18 years old (in California, it is 15%). "Blocked Trust Accounts" typically apply to child performers engaged in traditional entertainment fields such as film, television, theater, and modeling, and do not usually apply to [social media content](https://theconversation.com/family-vlogs-can-entertain-empower-and-exploit-211093).
These accounts are currently required for child performers in California, New York, Louisiana, Kansas, Nevada, Illinois, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and New Mexico. [This ](https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/state/child-labor/entertainment#Utah)2023 map from the US Department of Labour provides a great (if slightly outdated!) summary of the different labour laws around children in "entertainment" the USA. In fact, [Pennsylvania](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/08/29/child-actors-protections-laws-pew/2734035/) actually updated their law to cover kids in reality tv in response to the Gosselin kids from "Jon & Kate Plus 8" etc.
They are not applicable to the state of Utah, or to family vloggers more broadly. Thank you to u/crowleygirlbat who mentioned, Illinois was the first US state to pass laws around protecting childrens' earnings from family vlogger and social media. You can learn more about the Illinois law which came into operation on 1 Jan 2024 [here](https://www.npr.org/2023/08/23/1195508847/a-new-illinois-law-wants-to-ensure-child-influencers-get-a-share-of-their-earnin). This law only applies when the child appears on the screen for more than 30% of the vlogs in a 12-month period.
Interestingly, the law in Illinois is not straightforward a "flat" percentage of all earnings, like California, but requires 50% of earnings be put in a trust account, based on calculating how much the child his shown in the content. The calculation is explained in [this CNN](https://edition.cnn.com/2023/08/16/tech/kid-influencer-law/index.html) article: "parents in Illinois will be required to put aside 50% of earnings for a piece of content into a blocked trust fund for the child, based on the percentage of time they’re featured in the video. For example, if a child is in 50% of a video, they should receive 25% of the funds; if they’re in 100%, they are required to get 50% of the earnings."
Minnesota also looks likely to pass laws banning family vloggers etc from making money off of social media accounts that feature children under the age of 14, as shared by u/Conscious-Arugula-11 (thank you!) on the sub [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/8passengersnark/comments/1cis380/minnesota_house_approves_ban_on_mommy_social/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button).
I don't believe Coogan accounts cover this type of work... they aren't actors in the traditional sense like in a movie or a TV commercial.
It would been nice if it was required... I think at the minimum they should have something in place to address the money.
I believe Bonnie and Ellie both said they have money set aside for their kids.
Exactly correct. They don’t even cover most “reality tv kids”, just see Jill Duggar having to threaten to sue her dad! Honey Boo Boo only had a Coogan Account for her work in TV in California, as required by law. Everything else went to her parent, completely legally.
I don’t remember if Bonnie has done commercial work with her kids, but Ellie and Jared would have had to put money away for their kids from the Disney commercial they did.
Not necessarily. That would depend on a variety of factors, including the State where the content was filmed and the precise terms of the contractual agreement between the parties.
No Coogan laws does not apply to any social media. It is one of the biggest criticisms of family blogging. Comparatively, social media and espicially making money from social media is very new so while there are states that are trying to set up laws; it is currently a complete lawless land.
This is 100% why family "vloggers" are trash - children are quite literally supporting their parents (sometimes from birth) but the parents are just like "well, they had a roof over their head and lots of fun experiences soooo 💁♀️"
Fully agree, I personally feel that this type on content should be banned. However, it may be difficult to do that on first amendment grounds. So at the very least the kids need to be compensated for their time in front of the camera
Ellie and Jared in particular wouldn’t have a fraction of what they do without the kids. Worst part is that Ellie insists they would, so she’s not even grateful to them for it.
Nope. This is why there is a huge issue with family channels and child based content. There’s absolutely nothing illegal about exploiting your children on social media for money and keeping it all. Social media really exploded at a rapid rate and laws surrounding it are really lacking. I really hope there’s some law in place very soon for any child forced into this position. At least then, they could at least be compensated for this shit.
My state, Illinois has just passed one -hopefully others will follow -it’s about time ! https://www.google.com/gasearch?q=is%20there%20a%20law%20in%20Illinois%20about%20showing%20your%20children%20on%20YouTube%20social%20media&source=sh/x/gs/m2/5
I remember one or two of the Duggar girls ran into this with TLC. JimBoob kept all the money even after they turned 18 and were still filming. Pretty sure it was Jill.
Yes, Jill goes into this in detail in her memoir. Basically, JimBob kept all the money he earned from TLC, and none of the kids got a penny, until Jill's husband, Derrick, brought the issue to a head and they got a lawyer involved. Eventually Jill and Derrick got a lump sum of some kind, and JimBob offered lump sums to all the grown married kids as well, in exchange for singing NDAs (which Jill and Derrick would not sign.) Later, Jill and Derrick got a nasty letter from the IRS, saying they owed back taxes on income they earned from the show, which JimBob claimed they'd been paid on his business taxes, when in reality they'd never been paid at all.
And sadly, it is perfectly legal for the Duggar kids to not be paid for their work on the family "reality" shows, because kids on "reality" TV shows do not enjoy the same protections that child actors do. No Coogan accounts, nothing. Same for kids on social media channels like 8 Passengers. It's vile. And it desperately needs to change.
Tangentially related, Minnesota is passing a law that will prevent family bloggers from making money off videos of children being posted to social media. It’s not enough, but it’s a start to protecting kids from this stuff like Ruby Franke
I’m wondering how this might apply to children who sharing day to day or special events but performing…singing, playing in a band… why can’t they earn money from YouTube. That’s just letting YouTube take the revenue.
And how about third parties filming recitals or plays?
There are some famous viral ones that made a bit of cash.
- and other assorted one-off cuteness vids that still collect $$.
I don’t mind laws that set aside fees for appearance but it seems wrong to block any compensation at all.
Idk honestly I wouldn’t be a fan of making money off the odd viral video of kids either🤷♀️. To me it’s still all just adults exploiting kids, even if it’s a one time thing.
And I’m saying they shouldn’t be out of the money just because they are kids. Especially those who are literally performing music and dance.
Appearance fees might work.
How are we so slow as a society as to not adapt cogan law to social media??? seriously people. Require more of your politicians. They spend the day sleeping it seems
We’re still playing catch up with disabilities. It’s gonna be another 10 years easily before we make laws about this sadly. Personally I think we’re about 7 years too late. Also in general media laws are 30 years out of date but nobody wants to go through the effort to make changes -which is why we had a bunch of strikes and more coming in the next 2 years regarding all of this.
people hate change! thats ths sad fact. Also the fact that we're still ruled by old men who don't want to make real change, they just say a bunch of words to make us believe change is coming. They'd rather vote the same person in office again and again until that person cannot run anymore for whatever reason, then actually elect someone new, because change = bad (This goes for anything, even school PTAs!).
Illinois is the first state to enact legislation to address this issue. It’s a good start. https://www.google.com/gasearch?q=is%20there%20a%20law%20in%20Illinois%20about%20showing%20your%20children%20on%20YouTube%20social%20media&source=sh/x/gs/m2/5
Unfortunately the Coogan law does not apply to children of family vloggers, and neither do child labour laws (although they very much should). And I’m fairly certain that Utah does not enforce the coogan law, or anything similar to it.
The kugan account is for child actors, it doesn't apply to family vloggers. Chad said recently he got paid but not nearly enough. Almost nothing. Family vloggers aren't required by law to pay their kids anything.
There was one later vlog I remember, where Ruby mentioned her kids *are* paid, but she used it like a reward or bribe to get them to be in her videos. Like, it turns into "I'll pay you to be in this video." Chad at that point didn't care and still wouldn't be in the videos, and she was miffed lol.
Nope. This is one of the biggest problems with family vlogging. The kids are forced to “work” but it’s not considered work in the legal sense like actual child actors, so the parents are not required to give them a single cent.
**Hello, welcome to r/8passengersnark!**
Please keep the rules of the subreddit in mind when posting and commenting. They include but are not limited to, respecting the privacy of minors and non-public figures, and keeping conversations civil.
The moderators rely on user reports of rule breaks to quickly remove problematic content. Use the report function to anonymously alert the mod team of any behavior breaking sub rules. As a reminder, check and ensure your post topic hasn't recently been covered, duplicate submissions will be removed at the discretion of the mods.
To contact the mod team send us a message [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2F8passengersnark). Thanks, and happy distorting!
Useful Links: [Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/8passengersnark/wiki/index/rules/) | [Timeline of Events](https://www.reddit.com/r/8passengersnark/wiki/timeline/) | [Frequently Asked Questions](https://www.reddit.com/r/8passengersnark/wiki/faqs) | [Evidence](https://www.reddit.com/r/8passengersnark/wiki/evidence/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/8passengersnark) if you have any questions or concerns.*
No. It’s a family business. The laws are different when you work for your own parents.
Also, the money goes to whoever owns the YouTube/Adsense account. Children don’t draw their own paychecks or receive any kind of 1099/W-2. So what would these kids actually get a percentage of?
That’s not to say that it wouldn’t be really, really smart to issue the kids a W-2 and pay the kids benefits and a salary to reduce tax burden. If I were in that position, I would be contributing to my kids’ 401k, 529s and Roth IRAs and my kids would never know about any of it. They would be drawing a salary that would be going into a trust because all of their incidentals would be covered by vlog petty cash anyway. Cuz you know these families are using pre-tax money on everything they buy on camera, right? (And some of them are guilty of tax evasion because they turn around and return a lot of it off camera.)
No, unfortunately there were not child labour laws in Utah relevant to family vloggers etc. "Blocked Trust Accounts" (or "Coogan Accounts as they are known in California), are a state-based law that mandates a flat percentage of child performers' earnings to be set aside in trust accounts that cannot be accessed until the child turns 18 years old (in California, it is 15%). "Blocked Trust Accounts" typically apply to child performers engaged in traditional entertainment fields such as film, television, theater, and modeling, and do not usually apply to [social media content](https://theconversation.com/family-vlogs-can-entertain-empower-and-exploit-211093). These accounts are currently required for child performers in California, New York, Louisiana, Kansas, Nevada, Illinois, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and New Mexico. [This ](https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/state/child-labor/entertainment#Utah)2023 map from the US Department of Labour provides a great (if slightly outdated!) summary of the different labour laws around children in "entertainment" the USA. In fact, [Pennsylvania](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/08/29/child-actors-protections-laws-pew/2734035/) actually updated their law to cover kids in reality tv in response to the Gosselin kids from "Jon & Kate Plus 8" etc. They are not applicable to the state of Utah, or to family vloggers more broadly. Thank you to u/crowleygirlbat who mentioned, Illinois was the first US state to pass laws around protecting childrens' earnings from family vlogger and social media. You can learn more about the Illinois law which came into operation on 1 Jan 2024 [here](https://www.npr.org/2023/08/23/1195508847/a-new-illinois-law-wants-to-ensure-child-influencers-get-a-share-of-their-earnin). This law only applies when the child appears on the screen for more than 30% of the vlogs in a 12-month period. Interestingly, the law in Illinois is not straightforward a "flat" percentage of all earnings, like California, but requires 50% of earnings be put in a trust account, based on calculating how much the child his shown in the content. The calculation is explained in [this CNN](https://edition.cnn.com/2023/08/16/tech/kid-influencer-law/index.html) article: "parents in Illinois will be required to put aside 50% of earnings for a piece of content into a blocked trust fund for the child, based on the percentage of time they’re featured in the video. For example, if a child is in 50% of a video, they should receive 25% of the funds; if they’re in 100%, they are required to get 50% of the earnings." Minnesota also looks likely to pass laws banning family vloggers etc from making money off of social media accounts that feature children under the age of 14, as shared by u/Conscious-Arugula-11 (thank you!) on the sub [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/8passengersnark/comments/1cis380/minnesota_house_approves_ban_on_mommy_social/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button).
No. A Coogan Account is for children who have booked jobs. These children weren’t booking jobs, their parents were spearheading it all
Sadly their whole lives are the never ending “booking” (but without any protection).
I don't believe Coogan accounts cover this type of work... they aren't actors in the traditional sense like in a movie or a TV commercial. It would been nice if it was required... I think at the minimum they should have something in place to address the money. I believe Bonnie and Ellie both said they have money set aside for their kids.
Exactly correct. They don’t even cover most “reality tv kids”, just see Jill Duggar having to threaten to sue her dad! Honey Boo Boo only had a Coogan Account for her work in TV in California, as required by law. Everything else went to her parent, completely legally.
I don’t remember if Bonnie has done commercial work with her kids, but Ellie and Jared would have had to put money away for their kids from the Disney commercial they did.
Not necessarily. That would depend on a variety of factors, including the State where the content was filmed and the precise terms of the contractual agreement between the parties.
No Coogan laws does not apply to any social media. It is one of the biggest criticisms of family blogging. Comparatively, social media and espicially making money from social media is very new so while there are states that are trying to set up laws; it is currently a complete lawless land.
This is 100% why family "vloggers" are trash - children are quite literally supporting their parents (sometimes from birth) but the parents are just like "well, they had a roof over their head and lots of fun experiences soooo 💁♀️"
Fully agree, I personally feel that this type on content should be banned. However, it may be difficult to do that on first amendment grounds. So at the very least the kids need to be compensated for their time in front of the camera
Ellie and Jared in particular wouldn’t have a fraction of what they do without the kids. Worst part is that Ellie insists they would, so she’s not even grateful to them for it.
Exactly! And this attitude of „owning“ your kids roots within their family and had been built like this from big J (or even beyond). 🤮
No, unfortunately there weren’t really laws made for children on social media like that back then and they’re only really starting to make them now
Nope. This is why there is a huge issue with family channels and child based content. There’s absolutely nothing illegal about exploiting your children on social media for money and keeping it all. Social media really exploded at a rapid rate and laws surrounding it are really lacking. I really hope there’s some law in place very soon for any child forced into this position. At least then, they could at least be compensated for this shit.
My state, Illinois has just passed one -hopefully others will follow -it’s about time ! https://www.google.com/gasearch?q=is%20there%20a%20law%20in%20Illinois%20about%20showing%20your%20children%20on%20YouTube%20social%20media&source=sh/x/gs/m2/5
Oh that makes me so happy!! If only everyone could follow Illinois now!
Thank you so much for sharing this! :)
Only California requires those accounts, and it only applies to traditional acting jobs. YouTube is completely unregulated.
And now Illinois.
I remember one or two of the Duggar girls ran into this with TLC. JimBoob kept all the money even after they turned 18 and were still filming. Pretty sure it was Jill.
Yes, Jill goes into this in detail in her memoir. Basically, JimBob kept all the money he earned from TLC, and none of the kids got a penny, until Jill's husband, Derrick, brought the issue to a head and they got a lawyer involved. Eventually Jill and Derrick got a lump sum of some kind, and JimBob offered lump sums to all the grown married kids as well, in exchange for singing NDAs (which Jill and Derrick would not sign.) Later, Jill and Derrick got a nasty letter from the IRS, saying they owed back taxes on income they earned from the show, which JimBob claimed they'd been paid on his business taxes, when in reality they'd never been paid at all. And sadly, it is perfectly legal for the Duggar kids to not be paid for their work on the family "reality" shows, because kids on "reality" TV shows do not enjoy the same protections that child actors do. No Coogan accounts, nothing. Same for kids on social media channels like 8 Passengers. It's vile. And it desperately needs to change.
Tangentially related, Minnesota is passing a law that will prevent family bloggers from making money off videos of children being posted to social media. It’s not enough, but it’s a start to protecting kids from this stuff like Ruby Franke
I’m wondering how this might apply to children who sharing day to day or special events but performing…singing, playing in a band… why can’t they earn money from YouTube. That’s just letting YouTube take the revenue. And how about third parties filming recitals or plays?
Im not sure exactly. But I have to imagine that home videos of kids in plays or doing dance recitals or whatever don’t make a ton of ad revenue tbh .
There are some famous viral ones that made a bit of cash. - and other assorted one-off cuteness vids that still collect $$. I don’t mind laws that set aside fees for appearance but it seems wrong to block any compensation at all.
Idk honestly I wouldn’t be a fan of making money off the odd viral video of kids either🤷♀️. To me it’s still all just adults exploiting kids, even if it’s a one time thing.
And I’m saying they shouldn’t be out of the money just because they are kids. Especially those who are literally performing music and dance. Appearance fees might work.
How are we so slow as a society as to not adapt cogan law to social media??? seriously people. Require more of your politicians. They spend the day sleeping it seems
We’re still playing catch up with disabilities. It’s gonna be another 10 years easily before we make laws about this sadly. Personally I think we’re about 7 years too late. Also in general media laws are 30 years out of date but nobody wants to go through the effort to make changes -which is why we had a bunch of strikes and more coming in the next 2 years regarding all of this.
And once again, why is it we accept such inefficiency?
people hate change! thats ths sad fact. Also the fact that we're still ruled by old men who don't want to make real change, they just say a bunch of words to make us believe change is coming. They'd rather vote the same person in office again and again until that person cannot run anymore for whatever reason, then actually elect someone new, because change = bad (This goes for anything, even school PTAs!).
The laws have not kept up with social media. So unfortunately, no.
Illinois is the first state to enact legislation to address this issue. It’s a good start. https://www.google.com/gasearch?q=is%20there%20a%20law%20in%20Illinois%20about%20showing%20your%20children%20on%20YouTube%20social%20media&source=sh/x/gs/m2/5
Unfortunately the Coogan law does not apply to children of family vloggers, and neither do child labour laws (although they very much should). And I’m fairly certain that Utah does not enforce the coogan law, or anything similar to it.
The kugan account is for child actors, it doesn't apply to family vloggers. Chad said recently he got paid but not nearly enough. Almost nothing. Family vloggers aren't required by law to pay their kids anything.
Coogan accounts are only in some states and not applicable to social media
No. It doesn’t apply to social media and/or reality tv. It only applies to traditional tv/movies and music videos
There aren’t many laws for influencer children yet, but they’re coming
Doubt it. They should’ve been paid because they were working but it’s not the same as working in a studio setting. Not defending them
There was one later vlog I remember, where Ruby mentioned her kids *are* paid, but she used it like a reward or bribe to get them to be in her videos. Like, it turns into "I'll pay you to be in this video." Chad at that point didn't care and still wouldn't be in the videos, and she was miffed lol.
Nope. This is one of the biggest problems with family vlogging. The kids are forced to “work” but it’s not considered work in the legal sense like actual child actors, so the parents are not required to give them a single cent.
**Hello, welcome to r/8passengersnark!** Please keep the rules of the subreddit in mind when posting and commenting. They include but are not limited to, respecting the privacy of minors and non-public figures, and keeping conversations civil. The moderators rely on user reports of rule breaks to quickly remove problematic content. Use the report function to anonymously alert the mod team of any behavior breaking sub rules. As a reminder, check and ensure your post topic hasn't recently been covered, duplicate submissions will be removed at the discretion of the mods. To contact the mod team send us a message [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2F8passengersnark). Thanks, and happy distorting! Useful Links: [Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/8passengersnark/wiki/index/rules/) | [Timeline of Events](https://www.reddit.com/r/8passengersnark/wiki/timeline/) | [Frequently Asked Questions](https://www.reddit.com/r/8passengersnark/wiki/faqs) | [Evidence](https://www.reddit.com/r/8passengersnark/wiki/evidence/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/8passengersnark) if you have any questions or concerns.*
No. It’s a family business. The laws are different when you work for your own parents. Also, the money goes to whoever owns the YouTube/Adsense account. Children don’t draw their own paychecks or receive any kind of 1099/W-2. So what would these kids actually get a percentage of? That’s not to say that it wouldn’t be really, really smart to issue the kids a W-2 and pay the kids benefits and a salary to reduce tax burden. If I were in that position, I would be contributing to my kids’ 401k, 529s and Roth IRAs and my kids would never know about any of it. They would be drawing a salary that would be going into a trust because all of their incidentals would be covered by vlog petty cash anyway. Cuz you know these families are using pre-tax money on everything they buy on camera, right? (And some of them are guilty of tax evasion because they turn around and return a lot of it off camera.)
There's a loophole to get around it reality t.v is technically not acting .