INTRODUCTION
The rise of social media has created an entirely new category of public figures: parental influencers. These individuals regularly share aspects of their family life online, often featuring their children in photographs, videos, brand collaborations, and promotional content. What begins as a means of documenting childhood memories can quickly evolve into a source of income and public engagement. As family-oriented content gains popularity, children increasingly become visible participants in the digital economy despite lacking the capacity to fully understand the consequences of such exposure.
The growing phenomenon raises important legal and ethical concerns. Unlike child actors working within regulated industries, children featured by parental influencers often operate outside formal legal safeguards. Their images, personal information, daily routines, and private experiences may be shared with millions of viewers without their informed consent. Once uploaded, such content can remain permanently accessible, creating digital footprints that may affect a child’s privacy, dignity, and future autonomy.
India has witnessed a rapid increase in social media usage, yet the legal framework governing children’s online privacy remains fragmented. While constitutional protections, data protection laws, and child welfare legislation offer certain safeguards, significant gaps continue to exist regarding parental sharing of children’s personal information online.
This article examines the emergence of parental influencers, the privacy risks faced by children in the digital environment, the legal protections currently available in India, and the need for a more comprehensive regulatory approach to safeguard children’s rights in the age of social media.
THE RISE OF PARENTAL INFLUENCERS
Social media platforms have transformed ordinary family experiences into valuable digital content. Parenting advice, daily routines, educational activities, celebrations, and family challenges often attract substantial online engagement. Influencers frequently build entire careers around documenting their children’s lives, generating revenue through advertisements, sponsorships, and brand partnerships.[1] This practice is often described as “sharenting” refers to a combination of the words “sharing” and “parenting.” Sharenting refers to the online sharing of children’s information, photographs, videos, and personal milestones by parents or guardians. While many parents share content with good intentions, the scale and permanence of digital exposure create concerns that extend beyond ordinary family communication.
Unlike adults, children cannot fully appreciate the long-term implications of online visibility. Decisions regarding their digital presence are therefore made by others, often without considering how such content may affect them in the future.
CHILD PRIVACY AS A LEGAL RIGHT
Privacy has emerged as one of the most significant rights in the digital era. In India, the Supreme Court recognised the right to privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v Union of India.[2]The Court observed that privacy is intrinsic to personal liberty, dignity, and individual autonomy. Although the judgment primarily addressed informational privacy in relation to the State, its principles are equally relevant to children in the online environment. Children possess independent rights and interests that deserve protection irrespective of parental intentions. The Constitution further guarantees the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21.[3] Judicial interpretation has consistently expanded the scope of this provision to include dignity, development, and protection from exploitation.[4] Excessive online exposure may undermine these interests by compromising a child’s ability to control personal information and maintain private spaces essential for healthy development.
RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH DIGITAL EXPOSURE
1.Loss of Privacy and Digital Permanence
One of the most immediate concerns is the permanent nature of online content. Images and videos uploaded during childhood may remain accessible indefinitely, even after deletion attempts. Information concerning education, health conditions, behavioural issues, or family circumstances can become part of a child’s permanent digital identity.
Unlike temporary social interactions, online disclosures may continue to affect educational opportunities, employment prospects, and personal relationships years later.
2.Commercial Exploitation
The commercialisation of children’s online presence presents another significant concern. Many parental influencers generate revenue through content featuring their children. In such situations, children contribute to economic activities without receiving protections comparable to those available in regulated entertainment industries.[5] Questions arise regarding ownership of earnings, working conditions, and the extent to which children should participate in monetised content creation.
3.Online Safety Concerns
Publicly available information may expose children to various online risks, including identity theft, cyberbullying, stalking, and misuse of personal images. International child protection organisations have repeatedly warned that seemingly harmless content may be collected, manipulated, or exploited by malicious actors.[6]
The widespread accessibility of social media amplifies these risks, particularly when personal information is shared without adequate safeguards.
THE INDIAN LEGAL FRAMEWORK
India does not currently possess legislation specifically regulating parental influencers. Nevertheless, several legal provisions provide indirect protection to children’s online privacy.
The Constitution guarantees dignity and personal liberty under Article 21. Additionally, Article 39(f) directs the State to ensure that children develop in conditions of freedom and dignity.[7] Although Directive Principles are not enforceable rights, they provide important guidance regarding child welfare.
The Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023 represents a significant development in Indian privacy law. The legislation recognises children as a distinct category requiring enhanced protection and imposes obligations concerning the processing of children’s personal data. However, the Act primarily regulates data fiduciaries and does not directly address situations where parents themselves voluntarily disclose children’s information on social media platforms.
The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015 also seeks to protect children from exploitation and harm.[8]While the legislation was not designed specifically for social media contexts, its underlying objective of safeguarding children’s welfare remains relevant in discussions concerning online exposure.
Despite these protections, substantial uncertainty remains regarding the limits of parental authority in managing a child’s digital identity.
COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVES
Several jurisdictions have begun addressing concerns associated with parental influencer culture. France has emerged as a notable example by introducing legal measures regulating child influencers and protecting earnings generated through online content involving minors. These developments reflect growing international recognition that children’s digital rights require protection independent of parental commercial interests. They also demonstrate that traditional concepts of parental authority may need reconsideration in the context of social media economies. India can draw valuable lessons from such approaches while developing solutions suited to its own constitutional and social framework.
TOWARDS A BALANCED APPROACH
The challenge is not to prohibit parents from sharing family experiences online. Such an approach would be both impractical and inconsistent with freedom of expression. Rather, the objective should be to ensure that children’s rights remain central to decisions affecting their digital presence. Greater awareness regarding responsible sharenting practices is essential. Parents should carefully consider the necessity, scope, and long-term consequences of online disclosures involving their children. Social media platforms should also adopt stronger privacy protections for content featuring minors. Legislative reform may further clarify issues relating to consent, commercial exploitation, revenue generated through child-focused content, and mechanisms enabling children to exercise greater control over their digital identities as they mature. Most importantly, public discourse must recognise that children are not merely extensions of their parents’ online personas. They are independent rights-holders entitled to privacy, dignity, and autonomy.
CONCLUSION
The emergence of parental influencers has created complex legal questions at the intersection of privacy, technology, family autonomy, and child welfare. While social media offers opportunities for communication and community building, it also exposes children to risks that were largely unknown in previous generations. Indian law provides important constitutional and statutory protections relating to privacy and child welfare. However, existing frameworks do not directly address the unique challenges posed by sharenting and the commercialisation of children’s online identities. As digital platforms continue to evolve, legal responses must evolve alongside them. Protecting children online does not require restricting parental expression. It requires recognising that every child possesses an independent interest in controlling personal information and preserving privacy. In the digital age, safeguarding childhood must include safeguarding a child’s right to grow, develop, and define their identity beyond the permanent gaze of the internet.
Author(s) Name: Rudrakshi Sharma (Kanoria School of Law for Women)
References:
[1] Sonia Livingstone and Alicia Blum-Ross, Sharenting: Parent Blogging and the Boundaries of the Digital Self (2017) 15(2) Popular Communication <https://researchonline.lse.ac.uk/id/eprint/67380/> accessed 15 June 2025
[2] Justice KS Puttaswamy (Retd) and Anr v Union of India and Ors (2017) 10 SCC 1
[3] Constitution of India 1950, art 21
[4] Francis Coralie Mullin v Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi and Ors (1981) 1 SCC 608
[5] Children in the Digital Environment (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Publishing 2021)
[6] Policy Guidance on AI for Children (UNICEF 2020)
[7] Constitution of India 1950, art 39(f)
[8] Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015