Tasting food, unpacking new toys or a day at an amusement park; for many children these are normal activities. But increasingly, these moments are captured and shared with thousands, sometimes hundreds of thousands, of viewers.
What started as innocent videos grew into professional channels with sponsors, fixed formats and income. Yet for a long time the government continued to talk about a ‘gray area’. Because where is the line for children between playing and working?
10-year-old Dex from Buinen conquered Instagram with videos in which he tasted special food. His Instagram account, Lowmengained over a hundred thousand followers in a short time.
The account was deleted earlier this week because Dex was under the minimum age of 13, despite his parents managing the account. It shows that platform rules, parental controls and the law are not well aligned.
Legally it is complex. Children are officially not allowed to work in the Netherlands and are not allowed to have a social media account. Platforms use their own minimum ages (usually 13 years), while the government advises caution under the age of 15.
There are legal frameworks for child labor, but they are written for theater, film and advertising. For several years now, France has equated young influencers with young actors and models, where parents must apply for an exemption.
In the Netherlands, the government is also working on new rules. One of these is that parents of children who vlog can be seen as employers if their child regularly appears in commercial videos. In that case, an exemption is required and the Labor Inspectorate can enforce it. Former outgoing State Secretary Jurgen Nobel (VVD) acknowledges that most parents mean well, but warns that financial dependence can become problematic. Children find it difficult to refuse if quitting means losing family income.
According to a letter to Parliament from Nobel (spring 2025), structural involvement of children in commercial content can be seen as work. Children who regularly appear in commercial videos may be at risk of harm to their development, privacy and safety. Intervention is inevitable, according to Nobel.
Platforms such as YouTube pay out advertising revenue once videos are viewed sufficiently. The more views and clicks, the higher the revenue. Content featuring children is attractive to algorithms and is often recommended repeatedly. As soon as a channel grows, companies come forward with collaborations. Free products, paid campaigns or a leading role for the child. Participation is then no longer optional, and the presence of the child is part of a revenue model.
Not every video featuring a child is problematic. It concerns how often the child works, whether money is involved, and whether the child (and the family) becomes dependent on it.
The question is not whether boundaries are necessary, but how they are drawn, with the interests of the child paramount.
