Family vlogging, advertising, and the commodification of children: why the rules are changing
It’s easy to scroll past a post of a toddler unboxing toys or dancing in their school uniform without thinking twice. But behind every child-centric social media account is an uncomfortable question that regulators, platforms, and many viewers are finally starting to ask: who is this really for?
Family vlogging, once a niche corner of YouTube, has evolved into a sprawling, monetised industry. Children are filmed in nappies, at dentist appointments, throwing tantrums, and hitting milestones - all in content that’s edited, branded, and often sponsored. And for years, no one in power said much.
That’s about to change.
The rise (and rot) of family vlogging
Family vlogging boomed with the early YouTube era. Channels like The ACE Family and the Saccone-Jolys posted daily updates on family life, earning millions of subscribers and brand partnerships. Viewers saw it as harmless fun, just relatable parenting with a ring light. But with scale came scrutiny.
The most extreme example is Ruby Franke, a Utah-based family vlogger who was arrested in 2023 for aggravated child abuse. Her fall was dramatic, but it wasn’t the only concern. Across the industry, critics began pointing out the long-term mental health toll on featured children, the lack of labour protections, and the disturbing viewership data.
Many of the young people we’ve spoken to at Honest London - those who were featured in family vlogs as children - describe significant trauma. They’ve been bullied at school, suffered deep embarrassment, and developed complex trust issues. One mentioned going on a date only to have his childhood videos surface in group chats later that night. His tantrums. His bath time. His toddler voice. It was humiliating.
The data no one wants to talk about
When family vloggers come to us for help with brand growth, they often hand over analytics. And what we consistently see is alarming: the majority of viewers are adult males over the age of 45.
Many creators pre-emptively mute disturbing keywords in their comment filters, because they know what kind of language appears under videos of their children. We’ve seen this first-hand. That knowledge doesn’t always stop them from posting. If anything, it shows how normalised and ignored the red flags have become.
Children can’t consent - legally or emotionally
Unlike child actors, family vlog kids don’t work under legal contracts. There are no permits, no welfare checks, no guaranteed savings. Most are too young to understand what a brand deal is, let alone the permanence of digital content. And yet they are filmed relentlessly - during illness, breakdowns, even grief… to meet sponsorship deadlines and keep engagement up.
Even when parents have good intentions, the lack of boundaries can cause serious long-term damage. Some children are simply embarrassed that their childhood is online for strangers. Others face harassment. And once a child becomes “less interesting,” many vloggers simply shift focus to a younger sibling. The exploitation is quiet, but constant.
This isn’t just about YouTube anymore
While traditional family vloggers are still common, the landscape has expanded. Instagram Reels and TikTok are full of parenting influencers - many of whom regularly feature their children in nappy shots, swimwear, or gymnastics gear. The line between “personal post” and “childhood for sale” is now paper-thin.
Brands have played a huge role in this. Baby products, early learning toys, child-safe paints, you name it - many are promoted through content featuring children, often with little regard for who sees it. Once a post is public, it can be downloaded, screen-recorded, and shared on Telegram, Reddit, or worse.
What’s coming next: platform rules and legal reform
Change is already happening. France and California have introduced early legislation protecting child influencers. TikTok is under pressure to restrict algorithmic amplification of underage content. Even platforms like YouTube are tightening ad eligibility for ‘made for kids’ videos.
Expect more:
New transparency rules on income made from children’s content
Age-gating or visibility restrictions for posts featuring minors
Mandatory consent policies for long-term campaigns involving children
Brand guidelines restricting visible school uniforms, home addresses or detailed routines
What brands and creators should do now
If you're a brand working with parenting creators or featuring children in campaigns, here’s how to stay ethical, and ahead of coming regulation:
Use actors or models when possible, and ensure permits are in place
If working with real families, ensure the children’s faces are obscured and no private details (like school logos or locations) are visible
Request audience analytics from creators - and avoid working with channels with disproportionate male audiences
Don’t repost viral child clips, even if they’ve “done well” elsewhere - it sends the wrong message
Avoid incentivising oversharing - if a creator sends multiple options, choose the version with the most dignity for the child
And if you’re a creator or small business parent yourself:
Use private accounts or “Close Friends” for sharing family moments
Avoid daily posting about your child, even if it’s brand-friendly, especially under the age of 5
Don’t post full names, school routines, location tags, or sensitive milestones
If in doubt, ask yourself: Would I be fine if this video of me as a child went viral?
Final thought: what you post today might hurt them tomorrow
The debate around family vlogging isn’t about demonising parents, it’s about catching up to the reality of digital life. Children are not content. The internet is not forgetful. And brands that ignore the growing backlash will soon find themselves on the wrong side of public opinion, and regulation.
At Honest London, we’ve turned down every request we’ve had to grow a family vlog channel. The risks are high. The ethical lines are blurry. And the reputational fallout, for brands and creators alike, is coming fast.
Now is the time to adjust.