Bill would add protections for children used as content by social media influencers
House Bill 392 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.
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
Axios
13 minutes ago
- Axios
Scoop: Bessent to take victory lap on tax revenue
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent will tell House lawmakers this morning that the cost-cutting and layoffs at the Internal Revenue Service didn't lead to an expected decline in revenue, with April's and May's tax receipts coming in higher than last year. Why it matters: More tax revenue gives the Treasury Department more time before it runs out of money and hits the debt limit. That could effectively relieve pressure on Congress to pass Trump's "one big beautiful bill" before the July 4th recess. What they're saying:"April receipts this year were up 9.5% over the previous year. And receipts in May were up 14.7% over the previous year," Bessent will tell the House Ways and Means Committee this morning. "I am pleased to report that Treasury has just completed its most successful tax filing season in years—and we did so while improving efficiencies and cutting costs at the IRS," he will say, according to excerpts obtained by Axios. "Critics of the President's efforts to modernize the IRS warned that the effort would result in a 10% shortfall in receipts," Bessent will say. "Instead, the opposite happened." The big picture: The so-called X-date, when the Treasury Department runs out of money and extraordinary measures to fund the government, is one of the driving forces behind Congress's urgency to pass Trump's budget bill before the July 4th recess. At the White House last week, Majority Leader John Thune called it a "no fail" situation as he works to find 51 votes for the House-passed bill. Zoom in: In early May, Bessent warned Speaker Mike Johnson that the X-date could hit in mid-July and that he should raise the debt ceiling before then.
Chicago Tribune
16 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
Editorial: Senate President Harmon's sly legislative maneuver exemplifies the need for campaign finance reform
Even lawmakers who've been around Springfield a long time were taken aback at the audacity of Senate President Don Harmon slipping a provision into a broader elections reform bill that would have gotten his campaign off the hook for a potential penalty well into the millions. The Senate president's problem stems from a March ruling by the Illinois State Board of Elections that his campaign had improperly accepted more than $4 million in donations in 2024 — a finding that stemmed from this newspaper's questions about the campaign's fundraising. If Harmon's appeal of that determination is unsuccessful, his campaign could be subject to a penalty as steep as $6.1 million. Harmon's language in the broader reform bill would have deemed the grounds for his campaign's appeal correct, both going forward . House Democrats concluded the provision would have ended the board's enforcement action, wiping the slate clean for the Harmon campaign. The Senate president's attempted slick move only confirmed what many voters already believe about Springfield — that those in power regularly speak in support of good government and clean campaigns but, when push comes to shove, do what they feel is necessary to preserve their authority. The maneuver deserved the condemnation it received — including from members of Harmon's own party. Thankfully, there was no vote on that elections reform package in the most recent session of the General Assembly. Beyond the unseemly legislative maneuvering, the Harmon story to our minds underscores how Springfield's past efforts at campaign finance have failed so miserably. The issue at the heart of Harmon's woes is a provision in the state's 2009 campaign finance reform law that was meant to neutralize the effect of big money on Illinois politics. Back then, worries about independently wealthy candidates effectively buying elections led state lawmakers to lift donation limits when 'self-funding' got to a certain level so that opponents could compete. Instead, that safeguard mainly has enabled party leaders like Harmon to collect sums well above the law's ordinary caps on individual contributions from politically connected, big-money donors like unions and other special interests. The law says that candidates who contribute their own money above a certain threshold — in the case of state lawmakers, it's $100,000 — no longer must abide by the donation limits (and neither must their opponents). The loophole is so flimsy that it permits those candidates to provide that cash as a loan and get repaid by the sizable sums that flow from the lifting of the caps. In this manner, Harmon uses the so-called millionaire's exemption in election cycle after election cycle, the Tribune reported. He's not alone. House Speaker Emanuel 'Chris' Welch has taken advantage of the same loophole, Alisa Kaplan, executive director of campaign watchdog Reform for Illinois, tells us. Republican leaders in the House and Senate have done so in the past as well. Before scandal forced him to retire in 2021, Michael Madigan routinely employed the same strategy as House speaker. Madigan awaits sentencing this coming Friday after being convicted in February of bribery and corruption charges. As broad as the exemption is, there are some limits. Harmon ran afoul of the law when his campaign collected amounts above the caps during a period of time it allegedly couldn't, according to the Board of Elections. Harmon says the board is misinterpreting the statute and has appealed. However the Harmon campaign affair is concluded, the bigger issue here is the loophole itself. It allows legislative leaders to evade campaign limits routinely and enables special interests to amass far too much influence over state policy through exorbitant donations. As Madigan so skillfully proved over his decades in power, caucus leaders exert immense influence over members by doling out funds in their campaign war chests, bankrolled by those special interests. This unholy alliance between the leaders and donors gives those deep-pocketed interests effective veto power over legislation they don't like. Why do so many problems facing the state seem so intractable? Look no further than this dynamic. Potential fixes don't come without tradeoffs. Eliminating the millionaire's exemption altogether would open the door again to uber-wealthy candidates (or super PACs controlled by rich individuals) gaining an unfair advantage. But there are some obvious steps Springfield should take. At the very least, an end should be put to making cap-busting donations in the form of loans. And the amount self-funders should have to front ought to be raised substantially from the $100,000 threshold currently applied to state legislative races. Reform for Illinois set forth other constructive suggestions — . They're no less relevant today. The Harmon campaign controversy will have done the urgent cause of campaign finance reform an unintended favor if it puts the millionaire's exemption on Springfield's agenda.
CNN
18 minutes ago
- CNN
US citizens and legal immigrants would be swept up in GOP drive to keep ‘illegal aliens' from getting government benefits
House Republicans are touting that their sweeping tax and spending cuts package would kick many 'illegal immigrants' off federal assistance, fulfilling one of President Donald Trump's top priorities. House Speaker Mike Johnson has repeatedly emphasized that the bill would stop 1.4 million 'illegal aliens' from accessing Medicaid. The tax portion of the package has a section on 'removing taxpayer benefits from illegal immigrants.' And the House Agriculture Committee crafted a provision to restrict food stamp eligibility for 'illegal aliens.' However, undocumented immigrants in the US won't be as heavily affected by the legislation since they already can't access nearly all federal government assistance programs, experts say. Those more in danger of losing some benefits are millions of legal immigrants, as well as children who are citizens but whose parents may be undocumented or have various legal statuses. 'It's part of a campaign of misinformation,' said Tanya Broder, senior counsel of health and economic justice at the National Immigration Law Center. 'This bill would deny eligibility to lawfully residing immigrants who have authorization to live and work in the US and who pay taxes that support the services that we all depend on.' The legislation, which is now in the Senate, where it may be changed, would greatly limit the categories of legal immigrants who can qualify for a variety of federal benefits, including the child tax credit, food stamps, Affordable Care Act subsidies and Medicare. It also takes aim at states that provide Medicaid-like coverage to undocumented immigrants with their own funds. Currently, immigrants' eligibility for federal benefits depends on their status, of which there are many categories. Among those authorized to be in the US, certain groups can qualify right away, others must wait several years. Some immigrant children and pregnant women can access Medicaid sooner if states opt to allow them. But immigrants with other legal statuses do not qualify for any public assistance. (All of them must also meet the other eligibility criteria for the benefit programs, including income limits.) Undocumented immigrants generally only qualify for what's known as Emergency Medicaid, which reimburses hospitals for the emergency care they are required to provide. These patients would have to be eligible for Medicaid were it not for their immigration status. Separately, some states provide health coverage to certain undocumented immigrants, most commonly children, using only state funds. At least one advocate for tighter controls on immigration thinks the House GOP bill misses the mark. Taking away benefits from immigrants already in the US does not address the underlying problem of illegal immigration, said Steven Camarota, director of research at the Center for Immigration Studies. 'This bill nibbles around the edges,' said Camarota. 'Will it have that much of an effect? That's the question.' The proposed changes could have devastating consequences for vulnerable immigrant communities, particularly those who rely on public benefits to survive, said Beatriz Ortiz, a senior staff attorney at the International Rescue Committee. Prior to joining IRC, Ortiz worked at Ayuda, where she represented immigrants as a staff attorney. 'If you don't give people the possibility … the tools, they won't have a dignified life,' Ortiz said. One of the most consequential changes involves the child tax credit, which House Republicans want to temporarily boost to $2,500 per child, from $2,000. Under the bill, a child's parents would have to have Social Security numbers, in addition to the child. Currently, families can receive the credit if the parents file their tax returns with an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number, or ITIN, which is used by some legal and undocumented immigrants — as long as the child has a Social Security number. This provision could leave about 2 million children ineligible for the child tax credit, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation, which analyzed the bill. The Center for Migration Studies estimates the number is closer to 4.5 million children who are US citizens or lawful permanent residents, otherwise known as green card holders. 'It singles out and disadvantages US citizen children because of their parents' immigration status,' said Shelby Gonzales, vice president for immigration policy at the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, noting that research shows the credit has a positive impact on children's health, educational attainment and, eventually, earnings. 'That's really alarming.' Similarly, the 'Trump accounts' that the legislation would create would require both parents to have Social Security numbers to be eligible to claim the $1,000 federal contribution for their US-born citizen babies. Fewer immigrants would be eligible for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, the formal name for food stamps, if the House bill becomes law. Refugees, people approved for asylum, domestic violence victims and survivors of labor or sex trafficking would no longer qualify. Only citizens, green card holders, certain Cuban parolees and migrants from certain Pacific Ocean island nations would be able to receive food stamps. Between 120,000 and 250,000 people would lose access to this food assistance over the next decade, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Families with citizen children would also feel the pinch – even if the kids would continue to qualify, the household would receive less assistance each month if the parents are no longer eligible. Gloria, who fled gang violence in El Salvador in 2010 hoping for safety in the US, worries that she could lose a portion of the food stamps that she and her five children, who are citizens, depend on. The family receives a total of $900 a month in benefits. 'I'm about to have a baby; I'm a single mom. If this president decided to take it away, I would be very affected. I live off the SNAP benefits,' said Gloria, who lives in Washington DC and has a T-visa, a protection for trafficking survivors. Gloria, who asked that CNN not use her full name for fear of retribution, said she was trafficked by her own mother and aunt in Maryland — forced to work at a carpet factory, sleep on the floor and hand over all her wages under threats of deportation from her own family until she finally escaped. Gloria recently earned her GED, is studying to become a medical assistant and is also learning English. Still, she says she needs continued support to achieve her goals and become fully self-sufficient. One asylum recipient from Egypt, who asked to be identified only as H.E. so as not to jeopardize his immigration status, told CNN that he depends on food stamps. 'If I lose those benefits, it's going to be bad,' said H.E., who lives in a shelter in Virginia, is unemployed and has been diagnosed with bipolar disorder. The package would also block many legal immigrants from receiving Affordable Care Act premium subsidies and Medicare coverage, making it harder for them to obtain health coverage from both the government and private insurers. Under the bill, asylees, refugees, temporary protected status holders and victims of domestic violence or sex trafficking, among others, would no longer be eligible for Obamacare subsidies or Medicare, even if they worked in the US for the 10-plus years it takes for senior citizens to qualify for the latter program. One million more people would be uninsured in 2034 if these immigrants lost access to the Affordable Care Act subsidies, according to CBO estimates. As for Medicaid, which House Republicans have targeted for steep spending cuts, the bill would not alter immigrants' eligibility for the federal program. However, it would levy steep penalties on states that have opted to expand coverage that's similar to Medicaid to a broader array of non-citizens, including undocumented immigrants, using their own funds. Some 14 states plus the District of Columbia cover at least some undocumented residents through these initiatives. The House bill would cut the share of federal matching funds these states receive for covering low-income adults under Medicaid expansion to 80%, from 90%, which would double states' costs. How states would react would likely vary, but experts fear that many would have to limit or end their programs covering undocumented residents. The CBO expects this provision would result in 1.4 million more people being uninsured in 2034 – the figure that Johnson often cites, even though these folks are not enrolled in the federal Medicaid program. The penalty could also hit the states that cover immigrant children and pregnant women with certain legal statuses – including those with temporary protected status and student visas – through a separate state Children's Health Insurance Program. Some 21 states have opted to do so for children and six for pregnant women. But since the penalty only applies to states that have expanded Medicaid, Pennsylvania and West Virginia would be hit, for instance, but not Florida or Texas, said Leonardo Cuello, research professor for the Center for Children and Families at Georgetown University. Most states would not be able to afford to continue these optional programs. 'The states are going to have a huge incentive to drop their coverage because the alternative is a massive increase in spending,' he said.
