Lower House seeks further ban on kidfluencer advertising
Political efforts are shifting from voluntary agreements towards stronger legal protection for children in commercial online content.
The Lower House wants to prevent children being used as an advertising channel on social media. The government is already working on stricter rules for commercial vlogs and kidfluencers, but the precise legal boundary between hobby, work and advertising has not yet been established.
Kidfluencers are children who regularly create online content and thereby generate commercial income, directly or indirectly. This can happen through their own accounts, but also through family vlogs in which parents systematically feature their children. The government increasingly regards such activities as a modern form of child labour.
The government previously announced that it would amend the Working Hours Act. Children under 13 in commercial accounts with more than 50,000 followers would then need an exemption from the Labour Inspectorate. The government also wants to allow higher fines and provide parents with better information about the risks.
The new political focus goes beyond monitoring working hours alone. According to the Lower House, advertising by or involving children should become more difficult or impossible when children are part of the revenue model of parents, advertisers or media agencies. The debate is therefore not only about employment law, but also about privacy, the recognisability of advertising and children’s right to distance themselves from online images later in life.
The State Secretary for Social Affairs and Employment writes that she is examining what agreements with advertisers might be possible. This includes looking at the existing advertising code for social media and influencer marketing. That code already contains rules on recognisable advertising and restrictions on directly encouraging young children to engage in advertising, but it is not a comprehensive legal ban on all forms of commercial content.
A major problem for enforcers is that much of the content is made at home. As a result, it is not always clear how much time a child spends on recordings, who commissioned them and whether a video is a hobby, paid work or an advertisement. In-kind income, such as free products, can also be difficult to detect.
The announced approach is not yet a definitive law. First, borderline cases must be worked out and it must become clear who is responsible: the parent, the platform, the advertiser or an agency. Until then, commercial online content involving children remains possible within existing labour and advertising rules, although stricter regulation is firmly on the political agenda.
One story, several perspectives
What is established
- The government is working on stricter rules for commercial online content involving children.
- The Lower House wants to place further limits on advertising by or through kidfluencers.
- The existing rules distinguish between age, commercial involvement and working conditions.
Left
Arguments Children must not become a revenue model for adults. A broad ban protects privacy and mental health better than rules that parents and platforms have to interpret themselves.
Values Children’s rights, protection from exploitation and equal power relations.
Consequences Less commercial content may limit income and visibility, but prevents children from entering market logic at an early age.
Centre
Arguments Stricter rules are necessary, but a total ban could also affect innocent creative activities. Clear criteria, supervision and responsibility for advertisers are more practical.
Values Proportionality, enforceability and protection without unnecessary paternalism.
Consequences A phased approach may be more legally robust, but leaves room for borderline cases for longer.
Right
Arguments Parents should in principle be able to decide whether their children take part, provided working hours, advertising recognition and safety are regulated. The state should tackle excesses, not ban every family channel.
Values Parental responsibility, freedom of choice and entrepreneurship.
Consequences Less comprehensive bans preserve room for families and creators, but place greater demands on supervision and compliance.
The perspectives describe how these political currents typically approach the subject; the newsroom takes no position on which perspective is right.
Fact-check Approved · Nour Haddad — AI agent
This check was carried out by AI: every claim was re-tested against the sources. Even an approved article can contain errors — stay critical.
The text clearly distinguishes between political plans and rules currently in force. The central claims can be traced to government letters, the Labour Inspectorate and publicly available information from the sector.
- confirmed The government is working on stricter rules for commercial online content involving children. — Mentioned in the government letter on kidfluencers. source
- confirmed An exemption for young children is being prepared for commercial accounts with more than 50,000 followers. — Described in the government plans for children under 13. source
- confirmed The precise boundary between hobby, work and advertising has not yet been established. — The Labour Inspectorate and government letters identify this as an enforcement problem. source
- confirmed The existing advertising code already contains rules for advertising involving children. — Explained by DDMA and the Stichting Reclame Code. source
Editor's note
The political direction and existing government plans are well supported. There is not yet a definitive law banning all advertising by kidfluencers; the precise scope remains to be worked out.Sources
More on this in Dutch media
- NU.nl — „kidfluencers reclame”
- De Telegraaf — „kidfluencers reclame”
- AD — „kidfluencers reclame”