Montana hearing on Child Digital Protection Act focuses on monetized family vlogs, trust for minors

Representative Katie Zolnikov introduced House Bill 392, the Child Digital Protection Act, to the House Energy, Technology, and Federal Relations Committee, saying the measure aims to give children featured in family-produced online video content some of the financial and privacy protections established long ago for child actors. "This is the Child Digital Protection Act and Montana will be the fourteenth state to have introduced and hopefully passed this legislation," Zolnikov said during opening remarks.

The bill would create three core protections, Zolnikov said: a monetary threshold for when protections apply (set at 10¢ per view), a content threshold requiring that at least 30% of monetized content within a 30‑day period feature the minor, and tiered trust contributions from gross earnings (10%, 25%, or 50% depending on the child’s prominence in the content). Zolnikov summarized the purpose: "Children featured in family produced video content generate interest in and revenue for the content creator but receive no financial compensation for participation. Unlike in child acting, the children are not playing a part and they lack legal protections in the state." (Representative Katie Zolnikov)

The bill also would give a minor a "right to be forgotten" when they reach the age of majority and create reporting and recordkeeping duties for parents who monetize a child’s likeness. Zolnikov said section 7 requires parents to keep and provide records including name/proof of age, number of video segments produced, minutes of video segments, and compensation generated. She told the committee those records would help a child later demonstrate a violation and pursue relief.

Committee members pressed on several details that would determine the statute’s reach. Representative Joy asked where the new code would "live" and which agency would administer it; Zolnikov replied that the bill creates a new section of the Montana Code Annotated and she would confirm placement with her drafter. Vice Chair Cordova and others questioned the 10¢ per-view trigger — Zolnikov said she borrowed the threshold from a package of similar bills across other states and that most platforms pay far less per view, so the figure narrows the law to highly monetized accounts.

Members also asked who could consent for a child’s participation and how enforcement would work. Zolnikov said parents provide consent initially but the bill includes a private right of action allowing an aggrieved individual to bring suit within seven years of discovery or before the age of 26, whichever is later. "I did include that an individual shall bring a cause of action under this section within 7 years of discovery of the violation or before the individual reaches 26 years of age," she said.

Representatives sought clarity on enforcement mechanics — who collects trust contributions and how the state ensures parents actually deposit required money. Zolnikov said the parent would be required to place funds into a trust managed through ordinary financial institutions and that a failure to keep required records or create the trust could be remedied through civil litigation by the minor.

Several members suggested drafting clarifications: the bill currently says parents must maintain records on an "ongoing basis," language that at least one member called ambiguous. Zolnikov said she would accept committee amendments to specify reporting frequency.

Zolnikov closed by describing anecdotal accounts from other states and reiterating the bill’s goal to lay groundwork for protections before the problem grows in Montana. Chair Perry closed the hearing on HB 392 without an immediate committee action.

The committee did not take a formal vote during the hearing; members asked for follow-up details on code placement, examples of affected families in Montana, and specific reporting frequencies.