California has enacted a law that allows adults who appeared as minors in paid social media content to require a parent, guardian, or family member to delete or edit it.
Senate Bill 1247, authored by Sen. Steve Padilla (D-San Diego), was approved by the governor and filed with the California Secretary of State on September 30, 2026, as Chapter 1022.
The law takes effect January 1, 2027, according to a client alert from the law firm Nixon Peabody. It adds Sections 6665 through 6667 to the California Family Code.
“A generation of children whose lives have been posted for public consumption have no way to control their image,” Padilla said in an April statement. “We need to bolster our landmark privacy protections and give modern performers control of what was shared of them as a child.”
Who and What the Law Covers
The statute defines a “child influencer” as a person at least 18 years old who is featured as a minor in paid content on a social media platform. Paid content is image or video content shared on a social media platform by a “vlogger” who receives compensation for it.
A vlogger is a parent, legal guardian, or family member of the child influencer who shared content featuring that person, where that content made up at least 30% of what the vlogger shared on social media platforms, and who received compensation for sharing it. Nixon Peabody noted that, unlike the compensation provisions of SB 764, the removal right does not depend on the vlogger earning at least $1,250 per month.
SB 1247 builds on two existing California laws, according to the firm. Assembly Bill 1880 expanded the state’s Coogan Law to cover minors who work as content creators and enter direct contractual relationships with third parties. SB 764, the Child Content Creator Rights Act, which Padilla’s office said he authored and which became law in 2025, requires certain family vloggers to set aside a portion of their earnings for minors who appear in at least 30% of their content.
Platform Duties and Enforcement
Social media platforms must provide a “clear and conspicuous mechanism” for a child influencer to request that a vlogger delete or edit paid content. The content must be identified adequately for the platform to notify the vlogger, and it must feature the child influencer as a minor.
If the mechanism does not let the child influencer submit a request directly to the vlogger, the platform must notify the vlogger within three business days of receiving the request. A vlogger then has 10 business days to delete the content or edit it so the child influencer is no longer featured.
A child influencer may sue a vlogger who violates the law for actual damages, statutory damages of $3,000 for each day of violation, injunctive relief, and reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. In deciding whether to grant an injunction, a court must consider emotional harm or substantial embarrassment, increased risk of harassment or compromised safety, loss of control of personal information, and harm to future opportunities.
Padilla’s office said the bill passed the Senate Privacy, Digital Technologies, and Consumer Protection Committee 9-0 and the Judiciary Committee 13-0 in April. The office cited the 2024 sentencing of family vlogger Ruby Franke, who received four consecutive sentences of one to 15 years each, with a statutory maximum of 30 years on four counts of aggravated child abuse. Her daughter, Shari Franke, championed a similar “Right to Delete” law in Utah, which was signed in March 2025.
Licensing Questions for Content Buyers
Nixon Peabody said the law places the removal obligation on the statutory vlogger and imposes separate procedural requirements on platforms, but does not expressly address every downstream use of content after a vlogger licenses or transfers rights to someone else. The firm said the issue may become more complicated when family vlog content has been licensed, distributed, or sold to a studio, streaming service, brand, or other third party.
For businesses acquiring such content, the firm described the matter as primarily contractual. It said agreements involving family vlog libraries should address whether the creator retains the rights needed to comply, who will handle a takedown or edit, and how the parties will allocate the associated costs and risks. A removal request made years after content was created may affect its continued availability and value, the firm said.
The firm also advised family vloggers to identify which existing paid content may fall under the statute and to set up a process for responding within the required time.
Dragomir is a Serbian freelance blog writer and translator. He is passionate about covering insightful stories and exploring topics such as influencer marketing, the creator economy, technology, business, and cyber fraud.
California has enacted a law that allows adults who appeared as minors in paid social media content to require a parent, guardian, or family member to delete or edit it.
Senate Bill 1247, authored by Sen. Steve Padilla (D-San Diego), was approved by the governor and filed with the California Secretary of State on September 30, 2026, as Chapter 1022.
The law takes effect January 1, 2027, according to a client alert from the law firm Nixon Peabody. It adds Sections 6665 through 6667 to the California Family Code.
“A generation of children whose lives have been posted for public consumption have no way to control their image,” Padilla said in an April statement. “We need to bolster our landmark privacy protections and give modern performers control of what was shared of them as a child.”
Who and What the Law Covers
The statute defines a “child influencer” as a person at least 18 years old who is featured as a minor in paid content on a social media platform. Paid content is image or video content shared on a social media platform by a “vlogger” who receives compensation for it.
A vlogger is a parent, legal guardian, or family member of the child influencer who shared content featuring that person, where that content made up at least 30% of what the vlogger shared on social media platforms, and who received compensation for sharing it. Nixon Peabody noted that, unlike the compensation provisions of SB 764, the removal right does not depend on the vlogger earning at least $1,250 per month.
SB 1247 builds on two existing California laws, according to the firm. Assembly Bill 1880 expanded the state’s Coogan Law to cover minors who work as content creators and enter direct contractual relationships with third parties. SB 764, the Child Content Creator Rights Act, which Padilla’s office said he authored and which became law in 2025, requires certain family vloggers to set aside a portion of their earnings for minors who appear in at least 30% of their content.
Platform Duties and Enforcement
Social media platforms must provide a “clear and conspicuous mechanism” for a child influencer to request that a vlogger delete or edit paid content. The content must be identified adequately for the platform to notify the vlogger, and it must feature the child influencer as a minor.
If the mechanism does not let the child influencer submit a request directly to the vlogger, the platform must notify the vlogger within three business days of receiving the request. A vlogger then has 10 business days to delete the content or edit it so the child influencer is no longer featured.
A child influencer may sue a vlogger who violates the law for actual damages, statutory damages of $3,000 for each day of violation, injunctive relief, and reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. In deciding whether to grant an injunction, a court must consider emotional harm or substantial embarrassment, increased risk of harassment or compromised safety, loss of control of personal information, and harm to future opportunities.
Padilla’s office said the bill passed the Senate Privacy, Digital Technologies, and Consumer Protection Committee 9-0 and the Judiciary Committee 13-0 in April. The office cited the 2024 sentencing of family vlogger Ruby Franke, who received four consecutive sentences of one to 15 years each, with a statutory maximum of 30 years on four counts of aggravated child abuse. Her daughter, Shari Franke, championed a similar “Right to Delete” law in Utah, which was signed in March 2025.
Licensing Questions for Content Buyers
Nixon Peabody said the law places the removal obligation on the statutory vlogger and imposes separate procedural requirements on platforms, but does not expressly address every downstream use of content after a vlogger licenses or transfers rights to someone else. The firm said the issue may become more complicated when family vlog content has been licensed, distributed, or sold to a studio, streaming service, brand, or other third party.
For businesses acquiring such content, the firm described the matter as primarily contractual. It said agreements involving family vlog libraries should address whether the creator retains the rights needed to comply, who will handle a takedown or edit, and how the parties will allocate the associated costs and risks. A removal request made years after content was created may affect its continued availability and value, the firm said.
The firm also advised family vloggers to identify which existing paid content may fall under the statute and to set up a process for responding within the required time.
Subscribe to Our Newsletter
Check Out Our Podcast