California's SB 1247: Former Child Influencers Can Force Takedowns

From January 1, 2027, a person who appeared as a child in paid family content in California can, once an adult, require the family member who posted it to take it down or edit them out. For brands that sponsor family creators, sponsored posts are now content with a possible expiry date. Contracts, usage rights and campaign archives need to plan for it.

What does SB 1247 say?

California’s SB 1247 adds new sections to the state’s Family Code. As summarised by the law firm Nixon Peabody on October 27, 2026:

• A child influencer is a person aged at least 18 who was featured as a minor in paid content on a social media platform.
• Paid content is image or video content a vlogger shares on social media and is paid for.
• A vlogger is a parent, legal guardian or family member paid for sharing images or videos of the child, where the child made up at least 30% of that person’s content.
• Platforms must offer a “clear and conspicuous mechanism” for removal requests. If requests don’t go straight to the vlogger, the platform must notify the vlogger within three business days.
• The vlogger has 10 business days to delete the content or edit the child out.
• If they don’t, the former child influencer can sue for actual damages, $3,000 per day of violation, injunctive relief and legal fees.

Unlike California’s earlier Child Content Creator Rights Act, SB 1247 sets no minimum earnings threshold for the vlogger.

Why does it matter beyond California?

California has been where creator regulation starts. It already extended the Coogan Law, which protects child performers’ earnings, to child content creators. Other states have passed or proposed laws requiring family vloggers to set aside earnings for children. A right to removal goes further: it recognises that a child’s image online is theirs to control as an adult. Expect other jurisdictions to follow, and platforms to build the removal mechanism for every market, not only California.

Where are brands exposed?

The legal duty falls on the vlogger, not the sponsor. But brands are exposed in three ways:

• Sponsored posts can disappear. A paid post featuring a child is exactly the content the law covers. Campaign assets you counted on as evergreen may be removed years later.
• Reused content is a grey zone. Nixon Peabody notes the law does not expressly address what happens after content is licensed or transferred: a brand that reposted a video in ads, on its site or in a retail display may face a request it did not plan for.
• Reputation. Being the brand in a video an adult has publicly asked to remove is not a good look, whatever the legal position.

What should brands change now?

Update creator contracts. Nixon Peabody recommends that agreements for family vlog content address future removal requests, whether the creator keeps the rights needed to comply, who handles takedowns and edits, and how costs and risks are shared. Add a clause requiring the creator to tell you promptly about any request that affects your content.

Rethink usage rights. For content featuring minors, prefer time-limited licences over perpetual ones, and keep a register of where each asset is reused, so a takedown can be executed everywhere.

Brief differently. Consider briefs where children are not the focus of sponsored content, or appear only incidentally. Products can be shown without making a child the face of the campaign.

Check your archive. Identify past sponsored content featuring children that is still live in ads, on your site or in partner channels, and decide which you actually need.

Choose partners with care. Prefer family creators who already limit their children’s exposure. That is a safer partner for you and a better practice to reward.

The broader shift

Creator marketing grew up treating content as a permanent asset. Laws like SB 1247 introduce the idea that the people in it, especially children, have lasting rights over it. Brands that build that assumption into contracts and briefs now will avoid scrambling later, and will be on the right side of a debate that is only getting louder.