When playing turns into work: Why also Swiss ‘kidfluencers’ need more protection

Children who unbox toys or show their everyday lives on camera appear to be playing. However, some of them earn millions every year. A legal analysis by Prof. Dr. Isabelle Wildhaber at the Institut for Work, Organisation and Transformation of the University of St.Gallen (HSG) shows that Swiss labour law protects these ‘kidfluencers’ only in exceptional cases.

Kinder, die vor laufender Kamera Spielzeug auspacken oder ihren Alltag zeigen, scheinen zu spielen. Tatsächlich aber erwirtschaften manche von ihnen jährlich Millionenbeträge, wie auch ein Beitrag der ARD-Tagesschau zeigt. Eine rechtliche Analyse von Prof. Dr. Isabelle Wildhaber am Institut für Arbeit, Arbeitsorganisation und Transformation der Universität St.Gallen (HSG) zeigt: Das Schweizer Arbeitsrecht schützt diese «Kidfluencer» nur in Ausnahmefällen.

Documentary series such as «Bad Influence: The Dark Side of Kidfluencing» or «The Devil in the Family: The Fall of Ruby Franke» have brought to the attention of the wider public how parents can exploit their own children financially – and in some cases psychologically – for social media content. 

Political awareness of the issue is also growing in Switzerland: in 2023, National Councilor Valentine Python put in a motion aimed at strengthening child protection against ‘sharenting’ and the commercial use of images; the National Council adopted it in 2024, whilst the Council of States has now rejected it in 2026. Legal research has so far focused primarily on the protection of personal rights and child protection. The labour law aspect, however, has hardly been examined. This is where the HSG study comes in. In this interview, Isabelle Wildhaber explains the key findings of the analysis.

What exactly is a ‘kidfluencer’? Isn’t that simply a child playing in front of the camera?

Kidfluencers are children whose social media presence is exploited commercially, for example via their own account, which they manage with their parents’ support, or as recurring protagonists in a family channel. We distinguish three scenarios: the child appears only in their parents’ account; the child has their own account, which is largely controlled by their parents; or older teenagers run their channels largely independently, in some cases even with their own management team. In practice, the boundaries between play and work are becoming increasingly blurred. In research, this is therefore also referred to as ‘playbour’, a blend of ‘play’ and ‘labour’.

When does a family video become ‘work’ from a legal perspective?

Two criteria are decisive: professionalisation and commercialisation. As soon as content is recognisably staged – for example, through scripts, repeated takes or instructions from parents – or if money is earned from it, for instance via advertising partners, product placements or platform revenue shares, it is legally classified as work. Whether the child enjoys it or perceives the situation as work is irrelevant. Work can also be enjoyable; this does not alter its legal classification.

Are these children then automatically protected under labour law?

No, and this is precisely where the problem lies. For older teenagers who run their channels largely independently, youth labour protection does not apply at all – they lack the integration into an external work organisation that the law requires. In the case of younger children who appear in a family channel or under strict parental supervision, the scope of the Labour Act would in principle apply: anyone who, according to our criteria, ‘works’ for their parents and follows their instructions is, in principle, an employee. However, the law provides for an exception for purely family-run businesses. Most kidfluencers fall precisely into this category.

What is the problem with this family-run business exemption?

Historically, the legislator assumed that parents would protect their children sufficiently anyway and that the state should not interfere in family matters. Our analysis shows, however, that significant conflicts of interest can arise precisely in these family-run ‘kidfluencer’ set-ups: the parents are simultaneously legal guardians, ‘directors’ of the content and the financial beneficiaries of the earnings. The cases shown in the above-mentioned documentary series illustrate just how problematic this can become. As a result, the protective provisions of the Employment Act and the Youth Employment Protection Ordinance are, in practice, rendered ineffective for most kidfluencers.

Do the children at least receive money for their participation?

Legally speaking, this is far from guaranteed either. An employment contract between parents and a child usually does not exist simply because the parents are in a conflict of interest and therefore lack valid power of representation for their child; in fact, the consent of a guardian or the child protection authority would be required. The Swiss legal concept of ‘salary compensation for who help out in their parents’ business’ is expressly provided by law only for children of legal age, although some legal scholars argue that this should be extended to minors; this has not been clarified by the highest courts. In the worst-case scenario, the only recourse is the law on unjust enrichment: the parents would have to reimburse the child for the market value of their work. However, in practice, this value is difficult to quantify.

What would need to change in Switzerland?

We suggest looking at other countries. France, for example, has required since 2021 that, once a certain threshold for publications or earnings is reached, official authorisation must be obtained, and a portion of the earnings must be held in trust until the child reaches the age of majority; advertising partners and platforms are also held accountable. California has extended its ‘Coogan Law’ – which originally protected child actors – to cover kidfluencers: at least 15 per cent of earnings must be paid into a restricted account for the child. For Switzerland, we suggest: Youth labour protection should apply above a certain threshold, regardless of whether a formal employment relationship exists. And the children’s earnings would have to be legally safeguarded, for example through a trust model based on the French or Californian model.

Prof. Dr Isabelle Wildhaber is a full professor of private and commercial law at the University of St Gallen and director of the Institute for Work, Organization and Transformation (FAA-HSG). The study in question was published as ISABELLE WILDHABER/FRÉDÉRIC BARTH/ANANDA LEE, Die rechtliche Stellung von «Kidfluencern» − oder: wenn das Spiel zur Arbeit wird, Zeitschrift für Arbeitsrecht und Arbeitslosenversicherung (ARV) 25 (2025) S. 103–115.