Malaysia’s new child online safety rules, which prohibit children under 16 from holding accounts on major social media platforms, have sparked a debate over the commercial exploitation of young online personalities. The ban, effective since June 1, aims to shield minors from predatory algorithms and data misuse. However, the legislation has also exposed a regulatory gap regarding the “kidfluencer” economy, a sector estimated to be worth more than US$100 billion annually. Experts warn that without updated laws, the booming industry of child influencers may continue to operate outside legal oversight, potentially violating international standards regarding child labor.
United Nations Children’s Fund (Unicef) representative Robert Gass notes that online activity is not inherently harmful. It becomes exploitative, however, when a child’s participation is driven by commercial interests and lacks meaningful safeguards. This includes situations where digital work interferes with a child’s right to education, health, rest, or play. The core issue, Gass argues, is not the act of content creation itself, but whether the child possesses real agency in the process.
Unicef defines digital child labor as work or services performed by children enabled, organized, or amplified through digital technologies. These may involve platforms, algorithms, or data systems. Due to the lack of a globally agreed-upon legal definition, these activities often fall outside the visibility of systems designed to detect or prevent child labor. This ambiguity creates a challenging environment for regulators trying to identify and protect vulnerable minors.
Related: Toyota Boosts Profit Outlook with Big Buyback
Laws failing to keep pace
The current legal framework in Malaysia, governed by the Children and Young Persons (Employment) Act 1966, does not specifically address digital child labor or child content creators. Richard Wong Chun Kiat, a co-founder at Wong Partnership Advocates and Solicitors, argues that the primary issue is the failure to recognize child content creation as a form of work. He suggests that once the state acknowledges this monetization as a legitimate labor activity, it will automatically fall under existing employment laws.
Wong proposes a system similar to trust funds used for child actors, suggesting that a portion of income from children’s online activities should be placed in a protected savings account. This fund could be managed by guardians until the child reaches the age of 18. Such a measure would help secure the child’s financial interests and prevent the premature or inappropriate spending of earnings. Critics note that this approach relies on parental compliance, which may not be sufficient to prevent exploitation in high-pressure commercial environments.
International examples offer a glimpse into potential regulatory models. France implemented a law in 2020 requiring under-16 influencers to adhere to strict working hours and have their earnings placed in a blocked bank account. These regulations aim to ensure that young performers are treated with the same protections afforded to traditional child laborers.
Related: Japan and US confirm joint yen‑buying intervention
A fragmented regulatory approach
Gass emphasizes that accountability must be defined across the entire digital value chain. He calls for public authorities to establish enforceable standards and for platforms to take primary responsibility for creating safe environments through design. This includes addressing how algorithms and monetization features impact children. Brands and advertisers also face scrutiny, as campaigns that incentivize or benefit from the exploitation of children should be held accountable.
While parents and caregivers play a role, Gass argues that placing too much burden on individuals leaves systemic risks unaddressed. He advocates for a coordinated regulatory framework that connects labor laws with consumer protection, advertising standards, and online safety regulations. Strengthening protection, he says, requires collaboration across sectors, including technology regulators, child protection agencies, and industry stakeholders.
