Word of the Month for June 2026: Exploitation

So, I was wandering through social media land the other day and I came upon a video where a stranger says hello to a child (young female) who is holding her mother's hand.

Mother asks, "do you know that man?" to which Child says no - I don't.  Mother looks back at stranger with a grimmace.

Later, another stranger wishies Child a happy birthday.  Child is confused and,...well, why don't you have a looksee at the video and see if it doesn't hit home with you?

Why this got my attention is what with all the talk about Jeffrey Epstein, I would think posting pictures of your kid(s) and other details of their lives online is just another form of child exploitation.  Before we get any deeper into this, let's define what we're talking about as it relates to exploitation.  

EXPLOITATION is a form of abuse where an individual or group takes advantage of an imbalance of power to manipulate, coerce, or deceive a person into performing acts—or being used for acts—that benefit the exploiter, usually in exchange for something the person needs or wants, such as affection, money, or food.  This abuse is fundamentally about the power imbalance, meaning that even if a person appears to "consent" or initiates the interaction, they are still considered a victim.

The problem is that under U.S. law, parents generally control the legal rights of their minor children, including decisions about publicity and privacy.  That means a parent usually has authority to share photos of their child.

There is no general federal law prohibiting parents from posting pictures of their children on social media. Most laws instead regulate companies or explicit exploitation.

Two key federal laws show the focus:

• Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA)

  • Regulates websites collecting data about kids under 13.

  • It controls companies, not parents posting pictures.

• Child Pornography Prevention Act

  • Criminalizes sexual or exploitative images of minors.

  • Innocent family photos normally do not fall under it.

So legally speaking, the system assumes parents are acting in the child’s best interests.  Even though posting photos is usually legal, it does becomes illegal in certain circumstances.  

A. Sexualized or exploitative images

If an image is sexualized or intended for exploitation, it can violate federal child-exploitation laws.

Relevant laws include:

• Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act

• Federal child pornography statutes

  Under 18 U.S.C. § 2251 (Sexual exploitation of children), a person commits a federal crime if they: employ, use, persuade, induce, entice, or coerce any minor to engage in… sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of producing any visual depiction of such conduct.

  18 U.S.C. § 2252  (Certain activities relating to material involving the sexual exploitation of minors) criminalizes knowingly transporting, receiving, distributing, possessing, visual depictions of minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct.

  18 U.S.C. § 2252A (Certain activities relating to material constituting or containing child pornography) criminalizes distribution, receipt, possession, access with intent to view child pornography using computers or interstate commerce (internet).

  18 U.S.C. § 2256  (Definitions for Chapter 110) Defines Explicit Conduct to include: 
  (i) sexual intercourse
  (ii) bestiality
  (iii) masturbation
  (iv) sadistic or masochistic abuse
  (v) lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area.

  That last phrase is where courts apply the Dost test (under United States v. Dost, 636 F. Supp. 828 (S.D. Cal. 1986)).

• State exploitation laws

  Every state has parallel statutes criminalizing sexual exploitation of minors.  Here are a few examples:

  Utah Code § 76-5b-201 (Sexual exploitation of a minor):  A person commits sexual exploitation of a minor if they: produce, possess, distribute, or view material depicting a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct.  Utah treats this as a second-degree felony or higher. 

  Caifornia Penal Code § 311.4  (Use of a minor in producing obscene matter): Criminalizes employing or coercing a minor to participate in sexual conduct for visual material.

  Tex. Penal Code § 43.26  (Possession or Promotion of Child Pornography):  Criminalizes knowing possession or distribution of visual material depicting a minor engaged in sexual conduct.

  N.Y. Penal Law § 263.05  (Use of a Child in a Sexual Performance): Criminalizes employing or inducing a child to engage in sexual conduct for visual depiction.

Why these statutes matter for a social-media scenario is because in the vast majority of family-photo situations, these laws do not apply, because:

• the images are not sexually explicit

• child are not engaged in sexual conduct

• there is no intent to create sexual material.

However, they can apply if someone posts images that meet the statutory definition of:

• lascivious exhibition

• sexual conduct

• sexually explicit performance

even if the image originally came from a family setting.  Courts evaluate these situations on a case-by-case basis using the United States v. Dost, 636 F. Supp. 828 (S.D. Cal. 1986) factors.

B. Sharing private information

Posting identifiable details can create legal problems if it crosses into:

• harassment

• stalking

• doxxing

• publication of private facts

For example, revealing address, school location, or personal data could lead to civil liability in some circumstances. 

C. Commercial exploitation of children

This is the fastest-growing legal area.  “Family influencer” accounts sometimes earn large amounts of money from videos or photos featuring children.  Some states now regulate this.

Example:

• Utah H.B. 322 (2025), codified primarily in Utah Code Title 34A (Labor in Private Employment)  
• Requires parents earning significant income from monetized content featuring a child to set aside a portion of earnings in a trust for the child.
• Allows a person who appeared in social-media content as a minor to request deletion or editing once they reach adulthood

• Illionois 820 ILCS 205/1–22 (Illinois Child Labor Law amendments); enacted by SB 1782 (2023). 
• Applies when a child appears in 30% or more of monetized online content.
• Requires a percentage of earnings to be placed in a trust account for the child.
• Allows children to sue parents for unpaid compensation after reaching adulthood.  

• Minnesota H.F. 3488 (2024) amending state child labor statutes.
• Requires compensation and trust accounts for minors appearing in monetized social-media content.
• Children under 14 cannot appear in certain monetized content work.
• Grants the right to request removal of content later in life.  

• Arkansas. Code Ann. § 11-6-101 et seq. (amended by Act 396 of 2023).
• Expands child labor laws to include minors appearing in monetized digital content.
• Requires recordkeeping and compensation protections similar to child-performer laws.

• Montana Code Ann. Title 41 (Child Labor).
• Requires earnings derived from minors appearing in monetized content to be preserved in trust accounts.
• Provides financial protections modeled after child-actor statutes.

• Hawaii Revised Statutes § 390-2 (child labor law). 
• Includes online content creation within the definition of theatrical employment.
• Requires earnings protections similar to the Coogan law.

For point of reference the Coogan law is named after child actor:  Jackie Coogan.  He was a famous child star in the 1920s who appeared in the film The Kid (1921) with Charlie Chaplin.

Coogan earned millions as a child actor, but when he became an adult he discovered that his parents had spent nearly all of his earnings.  He sued his mother and stepfather in 1938.  The public outrage from that case led California to enact a series of statutes protecting child performers' earnings.

In recent years, a new concept called “Sharenting” has sprung up.  Sharenting (referring to a blend of "sharing" and "parenting") is the practice of parents regularly posting photos, videos, or detailed personal information about their children on social media and internet platforms.  

Sharenting is a widespread phenomenon driven by pride, community, and documenting milestones, but it raises significant concerns regarding child privacy, safety, and long-term digital footprints.

A few legal issues that arise from sharenting include:

• children cannot consent to a permanent digital record

• predators may collect images

• identity theft risks

• reputational harm later in life

A related phenomenon called Digital kidnapping has also arisen where strangers take a child’s photos and pretend the child is theirs online.

So, why hasn't the law cracked down harder on child exploitation (if it is exploitation to post pictures of your kid online)?

The core legal problem is this:  Parents have a constitutional right to raise their children, and courts are reluctant to interfere with ordinary parenting decisions.  To criminalize ordinary photo sharing, a government would have to overcome:

• First Amendment speech issues

• parental rights doctrine

• enforcement problems

So lawmakers usually regulate extreme cases, not normal family behavior.

OK, that's all well and all but where might the law go in the future?  As it turns out, there is a growing movement to treat children’s online exposure more like child labor in entertainment.

Possible future regulations being discussed include:

• Digital consent rights for children

• Limits on monetized family content

• Mandatory earnings trusts (like child actors)

• A child's right to erase online childhood content

Some European countries have already recognizing stronger “child digital privacy” rights.

I guess what all this boils down to is parents really need to get a grip and know that while they say they are looking out for their kids, 'rents need to realize that EVERYTHING they post online is seen by everyone.

NOTE: that's EVERYONE as in not just the intended audience (friends and family), but potentially any person or system that can access, copy, intercept, store, or redistribute the image at any stage of its existence on the internet. 

So, how all this works is: once a photograph is uploaded to a social media platform such as Facebook, X, or Instagram, it becomes accessible to the platform itself, meaning employees, automated moderation systems, content-analysis algorithms, and internal data-processing tools that scan images for policy enforcement, advertising signals, or machine-learning training. 

From there, access may extend to the people the parent intentionally shares it with, but also to anyone those recipients show, screenshot, download, forward, repost, or otherwise distribute the image to, whether deliberately or casually. 

Even when privacy settings limit viewing to a smaller group, any member of that group can duplicate the image instantly and send it outside the platform through email, messaging apps, cloud storage, or other social networks, effectively dissolving the original privacy boundary.

Beyond the human viewers, “EVERYONE” can also include the technical infrastructure that touches the file. The image may pass through servers, backup systems, content-delivery networks, and caching layers that store copies for speed and reliability. 

Those systems may be operated not only by the original platform but also by third-party vendors providing cloud hosting, security scanning, or analytics services. In addition, automated web crawlers, scraping tools, or malicious actors may obtain copies if the content becomes accessible beyond a strict private setting, and once a single copy leaves the original environment it can propagate indefinitely across forums, databases, or file-sharing networks without the knowledge of the original poster. 

In the most expansive interpretation, “EVERYONE” could encompass the platform company and its employees, contractors and cloud providers, the intended viewers and anyone they share the image with, unknown third parties who acquire copies through technical or social means, automated systems that index or analyze the image, and any future recipient who encounters the file long after the parent believed it remained within a limited circle. 

So, to summarize, when you post your child's photograph online so that "EVERYONE" see it, "EVERYONE" means that the potential audience is not merely a list of friends but an open-ended chain of humans and machines capable of accessing or redistributing the data once it enters the networked environment.

Paranoid yet?

So when next you go to post something about your darling younglings on social media, I hope you keep all this in mind and resist the urge to post those cutsey birthday pictures or baby's first bath or your daughter's first kiss.

Yeah, maybe keep those memories close(r) to the vest.