FROM GUARDIANS TO EXPLOITERS? AN INDIAN LEGAL PERSPECTIVE ON SHARENTING AND CHILD RIGHTS

Author- Isha Shekhar

Abstract

The rise of “sharenting” the habitual sharing of children’s photos, videos, and personalinformation by parents on social media poses a profound challenge to privacy, autonomy, andchild rights. It situates the issue in global developments around “kidfluencers”, wageexploitation, and privacy rights with the help of international guidelines, while critically assessing India’s evolving digital data protection regime under the Digital Personal DataProtection Act, 2023 (DPDP Act).

The article argues that in child rights jurisprudence, parents are expected to act in the child’s best interest, not for their own commercial gain. Parental monetization of a child’s content may amount to exploitation when the child is used primarily as a source of income, exposed to privacy risks, subjected to excessive content creation, or deprived of control over their digital identity and earnings. Consent by parent does not automatically legitimize conduct that harms the child’s welfare, dignity, autonomy, or economic interests. Therefore, the issue is not whether parents can consent, but whether that consent genuinely serves the child’s best interests and respects their rights to privacy, development, dignity and future autonomy.

The article further argues that India lacks a robust legal and policy framework to protect children’s digital identity, autonomy, and financial rights, and proposes arights-based approach to balance parental authority, state intervention, and the child’s bestinterests and need for privacy and labour protection for children of vloggers. In this article, weexamine the reason and mentality of the parents or guardian who are mixing media and child formonetary benefits.

Keywords: Sharenting, Kidfluencer, Wage exploitation, Privacy rights, Autonomy and identity theft

I. INTRODUCTION

First of all, what is sharenting?, UNICEF defined sharenting:

“When we share things about our children online without involving them in that decision making process, we’re missing out on a valuable opportunity to teach our children and model for our children the idea of consent.”[1](Steinberg, n.d.)

In the age of social media, childhood privacy is no longer confined to the home, a place which is supposed to be the most private place, parents are putting the most intimate part of the children’s  lives for views, fame and monetary gain.[2] Imagine a child in 2023 may find their earliest memories, tantrums, milestones, or accidents documented and shared online by their parents without their knowledge or consent. At first, the child might not be aware their parents are filming them. However, as they grow older, the child will inevitably learn that throughout their entire childhood, their parents were filming and posting these videos, without consent, online for millions of strangers to view. Many of these posts, once monetized, generate substantial income for parents, creating “kidfluencers” whose online persona precedes their own agency.[3]

This article argues that Indian law, despite emerging reforms under the DPDP Act, 2023, remains silent on these pressing questions, leaving children vulnerable to exploitation in both personal and commercial contexts.[4]

Risks of sharenting: How parent bloggers decide what is OK to share online, where and with whom, as well as how they imagine their children will think about what they have chosen to share when they grow up.[5] While seemingly, it has three critical implications:

1.     Privacy Loss: Children’s intimate moments are permanently recorded, creating digital footprints and identity theft without their consent and knowledge.[6]

2.     Exploitation &Labour Concerns: Kidfluencers often work in unregulated “home studios,” subjected to repeated filming, scripting, and even harmful pranks along with their school mandates. Unlike child actors, they lack labor protections and guaranteed salary.[7] Public accounts increase risks of CSAM misuse, grooming, and solicitation.

3.     Identity & Autonomy: The child‟s right to self-image, dignity, and future identity formation is compromised by premature digital exposure from their birth. By 2030, 66% of identity fraud cases are expected to arise from sharented data through photographs, birth announcements, school details, locations, medical information and daily activities, parents often create extensive digital profiles before children are capable of consenting. The figure originates from projections by Barclays and subsequent cybersecurityresearch[8], which estimates that by 2030 nearly two-thirds of identity fraud affecting young adults may be linked information disclosed through parental sharing online.[9]

II. INDIAN LEGAL FRAMEWORK:

In India, the debate on sharenting, the practice of parents sharing images, videos, and personal details of their children online raises profound legal and ethical concerns. The following key questions arise in examining the adequacy of the Indian legal framework:

1.     Does a child have a reasonable expectation of privacy from their own parents?

2.     Who owns the earnings generated from a child’s image?

3.     What happens when a grown child confronts years of digital exposure they never consented to?

A.  Constitutional Protections:

·       Article 21 – Right to life and personal liberty, judicially expanded to include privacy in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, 2017[10], but its application within the parent-child relationship remains largely unexplored. Although children lack legal capacity, they are independent rights bearer under the constitution. Continuous disclosure of a child’s personal information, images, location, health details, or intimate mmentsan permanently affect the child’s digital identity without their informed consent, thereby raising concerns about their informational privacy and future autonomy.

·       Article39(e)&39(f)–DirectivePrinciplesensuringchildren'shealth,strength,freedom from exploitation, and opportunities for healthy development[11]. Similarly, Articles 39(e) and 39(f) need not be interpretated narrowly as applying only to traditional labour exploitation. The constitutional objective is to protect children from practices that undermine their development, dignity and welfare. Where parents monetize a child’s online presence through family vlogs, sponsorships, advertisements, or influencer activities. The child effectively beomes a source of economic value.[12]In such cases, the concern is not physical labour alone but the commercialization of childhood without adequate safeguards regarding consent, earnings, working conditions, privacy, or long term pshycological impact.

Therefore, the constitiutional argument is not all sharenting constitutes exploitation. Rather, exploitation may arise when parental sharing crosses the line from caregiving and expression into sustained commercial use of child’s indentity and personal life, especially into sustained commercial use of child’s identity and personal life, especially where the child bears the privacy and reputational risks while adults receive the financial benefits.[13]

B.  Child Protection Laws:

·       Juvenile Justice Act, 2015– Focuses on protection from abuse and neglect, but silent on sharenting[14].

·       POCSO Act, 2012 – Protects children from sexual exploitation, relevant when sharented content is misused for child sexual abuse material (CSAM). (Juvenile Justice Act, 2015; POCSO Act, 2012).[15]

C.  DigitalPersonalDataProtectionAct,2023:

The DPDP Act provides the overarching legal framework for digital personal data protection, includingdatapertainingtochildren.IntermsofSection2(f)oftheDPDPAct,childisdefined as “an individual who has not completed the age of eighteen years”, thereby effectively designating 18 years as the age of digital majority.[16]The argument is not that the DPDP Act, 2023 renders all parental handling of a child’s data as exploitation. Rather, the Act establishes a minimum compliance framework for processing children’s data by requiring verifiable parental consent and treating children as a protected category of data principals. This statutory protection is preventive in nature and assumes that children are vulnerable data subjects in the digital ecosystem.[17]

Section9[18]–ParentalConsentandDataProcessingProhibitions

In terms of Section 9(1), Data Fiduciaries (that would include social media intermediaries) must obtain verifiable consent from a parent or lawful guardian before processing a child’s personaldata. Further,Section 9(2)prohibitsDataFiduciariesfromprocessingpersonaldatain a manner likely to cause detrimental effects on a child’s well-being. Similarly, Section 9(3) explicitly forbids data fiduciaries from engaging in tracking, behavioural monitoring, ortargeted advertising directed at children. (DPDP ACT, 2023).

WhatisChildren'sPersonalData?

Section 2(f) of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 defines child meaning "an individual who has not completed the age of eighteen years."[19]

III. GLOBAL LEGAL RESPONSES

1. UNCRC (1989): Protects children’s right to privacy and protection against exploitation.[20]

·       Article 16 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child(UNCRC) outlines that “no child shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his or her privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his or her honour and reputation” and that “the child has the right to the protectionof the law against such interference or attacks.”[21]

·       Article 8 affirms a child's right to preserve their identity, which includes their name, nationality, and family relations as recognized by law, and states that the government must not unlawfully interfere with these aspects of their identity[22]

·       Article 19 obligates governments to protect children from all forms of violence, abuse, neglect, and maltreatment while in the care of parents, guardians, or others.[23]

2. GDPR (EU, 2016):

·       Article 17of the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation), clearly reinforce the importance of privacy and data protection for a child’s development and establishes the “Right to be Forgotten” especially relevant to digital footprints created without consent. (GDPR, 2016).[24]

·       Recital 38 of the GDPR notes that: Children merit specific protection with regard to their personal data, as they may be less aware of the risks, consequences and safeguards concerned and their rights in relation to the processing of personal data.Such specific protection should, in particular, apply to the use of personal data of children for the purposes of marketing or creating personality or user profiles and the collection of personal data with regard to children when using services offered directly to a child. The consent of the holder of parental responsibility should not be necessary in the context of preventive or counselling services offered directly to a child.[25]

3. Principles and Guidelines for Media Reporting on Children:

Media reporting on children must always prioritize their safety and dignity. UNICEFhas developed comprehensive principles and guidelines to assist journalists in reporting on children’s issues in a manner that balances the public interest with the protection of children’s rights. These include[26]:

a.     Six over-arching principles:

b.     Six guidelines for interviewing children,

c.     Seven principles for reporting on children’s issues.

IV. CONCLUSION

Sharenting exposes the contradictions of parental guardianship in the digital age. While parents are legally entrusted to safeguard their children, the lure of fame and financial gain has turned some into exploiters of their own wards.[27] India’s DPDP Act offers a starting point but remains parental centric and blind to intra family violations.[28] India must urgently adopt a child-centric legal framework protecting privacy, ensuring financial security, and respecting the child’s autonomy in the digital sphere[29]. Until then, children will remain influencers without agency, workers without wages, and citizens without privacy.

Navigating parenthood in the digital age is no easy task. Social media, smartphones and other technologies are advancing at a rate that seems to grow faster than our children and it’s not always clear how to use them safely even when you have the best of intentions.[30]

However, it’s important to note that parents can’t do this alone. A lot of this protection work needs to fall on our policy makers and the digital platforms to create safer spaces for families. [31]It’s unfair to expect parents to understand how platforms and technology are working, especially with how fast they are changing.

KEY REFERENCES

·       Constitution of India. (1950). Government of India.

·       Digital Personal Data Protection Act, No. 22, Acts of Parliament, 2023 (India).

·       General Data Protection Regulation, Regulation 2016.

·       Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015.

·       Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act 2012.

·       United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child 1989.

·       UNICEF Principles for Ethical Reporting on Children.

[1] UNICEF, The Risks of Sharenting and How to Protect Your Child's Privacy Online, available at: https://www.unicef.org (last visited on June 21, 2026).

[2] Stacey B. Steinberg, "Sharenting: Children's Privacy in the Age of Social Media" 66 Emory Law Journal 839 (2017).

[3] Leah A. Plunkett, Sharenthood: Why We Should Think Before We Talk About Our Kids Online (MIT Press, 2019) 15–20.

[4] Leah A. Plunkett, Sharenthood: Why We Should Think Before We Talk About Our Kids Online (MIT Press, 2019) 15–20.

[5] C.S. Moser, "Childhood, Privacy and Social Media" 28 Information, Communication & Society 214 (2023)

[6]Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1; Stacey B. Steinberg, "Sharenting: Children's Privacy in the Age of Social Media" 66 Emory Law Journal 839 (2017).

[7] Child and Adolescent Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986; Crystal Abidin, Internet Celebrity: Understanding Fame Online (Emerald Publishing, 2018).

[8]https://www.techmonitor.ai/technology/cybersecurity/sharenting-barclays

[9]Norton Cyber Safety Insights Report / cybersecurity research on digital identity exposure (various reports, 2020–2023).

[10]https://indiankanoon.org/doc/91938676/

[11]Constitution of India, art.39(e)–(f).

[12]Crystal Abidin, Internet Celebrity: Understanding Fame Online (Emerald Publishing, 2018).

[13]Leah A. Plunkett, Sharenthood: Why We Should Think Before We Talk About Our Kids Online (MIT Press, 2019).

[14]Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015

[15]Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

[16]Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, s. 2(f).

[17]Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, ss. 3, 8 and 9.

[18]Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, s. 9(1)-9(3).

[19]Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, s. 2(f).

[20]United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1989

[21]UNCRC, art. 16.

[22]UNCRC, art. 8.

[23]UNCRC, art. 19.

[24]Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (GDPR), art. 17.

[25]GDPR, Recital 38.

[26]UNICEF, Principles for Ethical Reporting on Children (media guidelines).

[27]Leah A. Plunkett, Sharenthood: Why We Should Think Before We Talk About Our Kids Online (MIT Press, 2019); Crystal Abidin, Internet Celebrity: Understanding Fame Online (Emerald Publishing, 2018).           

[28]Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, ss. 2(f), 8 and 9.

[29]Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1; United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1989, art. 16.

[30]UNICEF, Parenting in the Digital Age: Guidelines and Challenges (2021).

[31]Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Children in the Digital Environment: Policy Framework (2021).

Note - The information contained in this blog is for general informational purposes only. We endeavour to keep all content accurate, updated, and free from any form of misinformation or objectionable material. However, we shall not be responsible for any claims arising out of copyright infringement, plagiarism, or related issues; such responsibility lies solely with the respective authors. If you find any misinformation or objectionable content on this website, please report it to us at: editors.ilw@gmail.com