The Dutch government is considering making it illegal to use children under 16 in paid social media content. The government argues such online content featuring children - designed to sell goods to child consumers - is basically involving them in child labour.
With Australia's under-16s social media ban in place and other countries - most recently the United Kingdom - following suit, would this be the next logical step to protect children?
The reach of child influencers
Child influencers are increasingly featured in family vlogs, toy unboxing videos, gaming streams and branded posts. One prominent example is Ryan Kaji , who began reviewing toys on YouTube at age four. By 2024, he had built " Ryan's World " into a major commercial brand spanning toys, clothing, films, television content and sponsorships. The channel has more than 40 million subscribers, with estimated annual earnings of around US$35 million (A$51 million).
Research shows children often perceive influencers as more trustworthy and relatable than traditional advertisers. This in turn can limit their ability to recognise persuasive intent.
Influencer content integrates advertising into entertainment formats, blurring the line between play and promotion. Content created by paid influencers attracts, on average, nearly ten times as many likes per video as content that appears unpaid.
Influencer content can also go viral because large follower counts boost initial exposure, increasing the likelihood of cascades of shares and further uptake.
In this context, the proposed ban aims to prevent children from being used as a " revenue model " by parents or companies.
Dutch Minister for Work and Participation Thierry Aartsen argues that when children become central to monetised content, they risk losing their privacy and developing negative self-images . This is particularly so when their online presence is shaped by commercial pressures.
Unlike adult creators, children may have limited capacity to consent to their participation. They also have little control over how their images are used, and no guarantee of fair compensation .
For this reason, the Dutch government is framing the issue as one of child labour rather than simply media participation. It seeks to prevent children under 16 from appearing in revenue-generating content. In this way, it hopes to curb a "kidfluencer" economy that lacks adequate protections for privacy, consent and fair compensation.
A 'grey zone' in child labour laws
The Dutch government's decision highlights Australia's regulatory gap . Australian laws do not adequately address the growing use of children as revenue sources by companies or their own parents.
In Australia, every state and territory has different rules that govern child employment. Most jurisdictions restrict paid work for children under 13 or 15. Regulations also vary in terms of the duration of work allowed for children, the types of work they can undertake, and the responsibilities placed on employers.
In New South Wales, employers must obtain authorisation from the Office of the Children's Guardian to engage children for entertainment, performance, filming or still photography if the child is under 15. For modelling, that applied if the child is under 16.
A condition of being granted authority is the employer's compliance with the relevant legislation and code of practice . Employers must also follow strict rules, including limits on working hours, ensuring proper supervision, providing rest breaks, and protecting the child from harm.
Australia's current framework protects children employed through agencies, which are responsible for permits and compliance with rules governing hours, supervision and workplace safety.
However, when parents create content featuring their children for paid partnerships, it becomes unclear whether the child is an employee or simply participating in everyday family activity being filmed.
This creates a " grey area " where legal protections may not automatically extend to child influencers. This suggests new or updated legislation is needed to better protect child influencers.
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) has acknowledged the growing role of children in the influencer economy. It has raised concerns about the privacy risks, online harassment and lack of labour protections faced by "kidfluencers" appearing in commercial content.
New laws for a new world?
As social media becomes increasingly commercialised, governments need to consider whether existing laws are keeping pace with new forms of work.
Australia's ban on social media for under-16s came into effect on December 10 2025. These new laws aim to protect young people from addictive platform features and harmful content .
However, the ban is already proving difficult to enforce, with more than 60% of children still using social media. UNICEF Australia argues improving online safety, rather than delaying access, is a more effective approach.
What Australia could do instead of a ban
Against this backdrop, instead of adopting a blanket ban, Australia could extend child labour protections to digital environments. This could be done by classifying children's participation in monetised content as a form of digital labour under the child employment code of practice .
Such a change would require parents and talent agencies producing monetised child-centred content to comply with government conditions on the duration and type of work children can undertake.
The ACCC and Australian Association of National Advertisers (AANA) could also require social media platforms to clearly disclose sponsored content involving minors and provide greater transparency around such content.
Finally, the eSafety commissioner should expand media literacy initiatives to equip parents and carers with the knowledge, skills and tools needed to make more informed decisions about children's involvement in monetised, child-centred content.
Nipa Saha does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
