Child Influencers in Denmark: Work Permits, Parental Duties and How France's Law Goes Further

Short answer: a work permit, not just a marketing rule

A child under 13 who appears as a fixed part of, or regularly in, paid or sponsored social media content — including a parent's own child — needs a work permit from Arbejdstilsynet, the Danish Working Environment Authority. Young people aged 13-17 don't need a permit, but whoever runs the account or the deal still has to plan the work around the young person's age, health, development and schooling. France's 2020 law on "child influencers" goes further than the Danish model: it requires either a declaration or a full authorization depending on the scale of the activity, locks part of the child's earnings in a state-held account until adulthood, and gives the child an independent right to have their own content deleted. This article walks through both regimes so a Danish brand or a parent-influencer knows what actually applies today.

This is practical guidance from Make Influence, not legal advice. The rules on children in monetized content are still evolving — confirm the current status with Arbejdstilsynet directly before planning a specific collaboration.

Two different questions — easy to mix up

This article covers something different from the two questions the Academy already answers about children and social media. Marketing to children and teenagers through influencers is about when a child may appear in an ad for someone else's product — the child as a model. Denmark's pending social media age limit is about who's allowed to hold a profile at all. This article covers a third, separate thing: when a child's own participation in a parent's or a brand's monetized content legally counts as work — and what labour-law permission that requires, independently of whether the content otherwise complies with marketing rules. All three rule sets apply at the same time, independently of each other.

Denmark: a work permit for children under 13

The starting point in Danish law is that children under 13 may not work. Arbejdstilsynet's own guidance, published 29 October 2025, states that children under 13 may nonetheless participate in advertisements and social media posts — but only with a work permit obtained from Arbejdstilsynet. According to the authority itself, this applies even when it's the parents' own children appearing in the content.

When does it count as work if it's your own child?

The deciding line is whether the child appears occasionally or as a fixed part of, or regularly in, the content. Arbejdstilsynet's own wording is direct: "If your child participates or appears as a fixed part of, or regularly in, posts on your social media, you as an influencer need to be aware of the rules." Conversely, occasional or short-term use of one's own children can fall outside the requirement if it happens within a private household or family business. Arbejdstilsynet has also specified that it can be considered work when children under 13 appear in advertisements on social media — including when it's the parents' own children who regularly appear in the content the parent monetizes.

Arbejdstilsynet's own guidance on the permit itself frames the scheme as an exception to the general rule: children under 13 may not work as a starting point, but can be granted permission for cultural activities — including film acting, photography and similar work, a category that appearing in paid or sponsored social media content falls into in practice. The guidance explicitly notes that activities like delivering newspapers or working as an assistant trainer do not count as cultural activities and can't be approved through this route.

What Arbejdstilsynet actually weighs in an application

• The child's age and schooling
• Daily working hours — a maximum of 7 hours for children under 13, and less for younger children
• Rest periods and breaks
• Whether an adult supervisor is present
• The parents' involvement in planning
• A written schedule for the activity

Arbejdstilsynet also carries out both announced and unannounced inspections to check that the permit's conditions are actually being met.

Denmark: young people 13-17 — no permit, but still a duty

Young people aged 13 and up may participate, be involved in, or perform in posts and films without applying for a work permit from Arbejdstilsynet. That doesn't remove responsibility from the adult behind the collaboration: the work still has to be planned, organized and carried out with consideration for the young person's age, development, health and schooling. In other words, the absence of a permit requirement isn't the absence of a requirement — it's a different, less formalized duty resting on whoever runs the account or the deal.

Comparison: Denmark vs. France's "child influencer law"

	Denmark (Arbejdstilsynet)	France (Law No. 2020-1266)
Age threshold for special protection	Under 13 (strict regime); 13-17 (lighter regime)	Under 16
Mechanism	Work permit from Arbejdstilsynet (under 13 only)	Declaration or full authorization (agrément), depending on scale and whether it's a genuine employment relationship
Earnings	No specific statutory rule on where earnings must be held	Part of the earnings is deposited with the state-run Caisse des Dépôts and locked until the child reaches majority
Right to have content deleted	No standalone statutory right for the child themselves in this context	The child can independently — without needing parental consent — demand content be deleted ("droit à l'oubli")
Platform obligations	No equivalent specific obligation in this context	Platforms must adopt charters covering, among other things, user information, limits on commercial processing of minors' data, and easier erasure

France's model in depth — why it goes further

France's Law No. 2020-1266 of 19 October 2020 (often called the "loi Studer") regulates the commercial exploitation of the image of children under 16 on online platforms. It was implemented through Décret No. 2022-727 of 28 April 2022.

Declaration or authorization — what triggers which

The law runs on two tracks. If the child's involvement genuinely amounts to an employment relationship — typically a company producing content in which the child is the main subject, for commercial distribution — a full authorization (agrément) is required, following the same model already used for children in film and theatre. If instead it's a parent or another private individual publishing content outside an actual employment relationship, a simple declaration to the authorities is triggered once the cumulative duration or number of videos exceeds a threshold set by decree, or once revenue exceeds a threshold set by decree. The exact figures for these thresholds are set out in Décret No. 2022-727 — this article deliberately does not quote them, since they were not independently verified against the decree's current text; check Légifrance directly for the current limits if this is decisive for your case.

Earnings are locked with Caisse des Dépôts until the child reaches majority

Per Caisse des Dépôts' own guidance, companies that use children under 16 to promote products or services must deposit "the monetary amounts due to the child" with Caisse des Dépôts. The deposited sums are kept intact until the child reaches majority ("Les sommes déposées sont conservées dans leur intégrité jusqu'à la majorité de l'enfant"), and parents or other legal representatives cannot, under any circumstances, credit or debit the account. Once the child turns 18, Caisse des Dépôts sends a registered letter with withdrawal instructions; the funds remain available for 30 years after majority, after which unclaimed amounts revert to the state. The law also allows for exceptional emergency withdrawals while the child is still a minor.

The right to be forgotten — the child can request deletion themselves

The law gives the child an independent right to demand their own content be deleted from platforms — regardless of parental consent. Platforms are obliged to erase the relevant personal data at the child's request. The law also requires platforms to adopt charters that must, among other things, improve information to users, limit commercial processing of minors' data, improve detection of illegal content, and make it easier to exercise the erasure right.

Hypothetical example: when does Denmark's 7-hour cap actually bite?

The example below is a made-up, illustrative scenario — not a real case — and it only shows how the 7-hour cap works as a hard limit, not a rule of thumb for when a permit is needed in the first place.

Say a brand wants to film a 9-year-old for a full school day for a children's clothing campaign — morning filming, a midday break, and further filming in the afternoon, totalling a hypothetical 8 hours of overall involvement once travel, prep and waiting time are included. Even if the actual camera time is only a fraction of those 8 hours, a total work session of 8 hours on its own would exceed Arbejdstilsynet's 7-hour cap for children under 13 — before you even get to the questions of rest, breaks and schooling. The practical takeaway: a brief that plans a full day with a child under 13 needs to be counted hour by hour, not just by the actual filming time.

Decision framework for a brand or a parent-influencer

IF the child is under 13, and their involvement is a fixed part of, or regular in, the monetized content → apply for a work permit from Arbejdstilsynet before the collaboration starts.

IF the child is under 13, and the involvement is genuinely occasional and short-term, within a private household → confirm the private-household/family-business exception actually applies — and document that assessment.

IF the young person is 13-17 → no permit is required, but the brief still needs to genuinely account for age, development, health and schooling.

IF a brand is working with a French creator, or a Danish creator whose content is also distributed and monetized under a French platform arrangement → check whether France's declaration or authorization requirement could be relevant alongside the Danish rules.

IF you're unsure whether the child's involvement also brings the content under Section 11 of the Marketing Practices Act → see marketing to children and teenagers through influencers — that's a separate question to assess alongside the work permit.

What this means for a contract or a brief

When a brand works with a parent-influencer whose child appears in the content, the contract or brief should explicitly address who's responsible for confirming and, if needed, obtaining a work permit — in practice that's the parent/influencer, as the one holding parental authority, but a brand commissioning content with a child as a fixed participant shouldn't leave that confirmation to a verbal assumption. See what to put in an influencer contract for how this kind of requirement is written in alongside the other terms a contract should cover. Remember too that the ordinary ad-disclosure duty applies entirely independently of the child's age or any work permit — see influencer marketing disclosure rules in Denmark and the EU.

Make Influence's perspective

In our experience, the work-permit question gets overlooked because it sits in a blind spot between two rule sets brands already know: ad disclosure and Section 11's content rules for children. Neither one addresses whether the child's own participation requires labour-law permission. Our recommendation to a brand considering a collaboration with a parent-influencer whose child appears as a fixed part of the content: ask directly whether a work permit is relevant and, if so, whether it's been obtained — the same way you should already check an influencer's audience before you pay. It's an easy thing to ask about and an expensive thing to overlook.

FAQ

Does a parent need a work permit just to occasionally share a photo of their child?

Not necessarily. Occasional or short-term use of one's own children within a private household or family business falls outside the requirement, per Arbejdstilsynet's own guidance. It's when the child appears as a fixed part of, or regularly in, the monetized content that the permit question arises.

How many posts a month counts as "regularly"?

Arbejdstilsynet's own guidance doesn't give a number. That's a genuine gap in the current public guidance, not something this article can fill with a guess — the authority assesses each case individually. If you're unsure, the safest move is to ask Arbejdstilsynet directly rather than set your own threshold.

Does this mean a brand can ignore compliance if the young person is 13-17?

No. The absence of a permit requirement for 13-17-year-olds isn't the absence of responsibility — the work still has to be organized with genuine consideration for age, development, health and schooling. And Section 11 of the Marketing Practices Act can still apply, entirely independently of the work-permit question, if the content is aimed at children and young people — see marketing to children and teenagers through influencers.

Is France's law relevant to a Danish brand that only works with Danish influencers?

Only as a comparison point, unless the collaboration genuinely involves a French creator or French distribution/arrangement. France's law isn't Danish law and doesn't automatically apply to a purely Danish collaboration — it's included here to show how much further a legal framework in this space can go.

Who applies for the work permit — the parent or the brand?

Under Arbejdstilsynet's own scheme, it's the parent or guardian who applies, since they hold parental authority. A brand commissioning content with a child as a fixed participant should still get explicit confirmation that the question has been resolved before the collaboration goes ahead.

Does Denmark have an equivalent to France's right-to-be-forgotten for a child?

Not as a specific statutory right in this context that this article could verify. That's precisely what makes the French model go further on this point — it gives the child an independent right that the Danish labour-law framework for children in social media doesn't have a direct counterpart to.

Does Denmark's 7-hour cap also apply to 13-17-year-olds?

The specific 7-hour cap referenced in this article applies specifically to children under 13, as part of the permit scheme itself. For 13-17-year-olds, this article's sources don't identify an equivalent fixed hour limit — instead, a more general requirement applies that the work be organized with consideration for the young person's age, development and health.

Does this article also cover a parent's own children appearing unpaid in family-vlog content, not as fixed paid participants?

Not on the data protection side. This article's work-permit question is a labour-law question, about the child's own participation. A separate, entirely independent question — whether a valid GDPR legal basis even exists for publishing a child's image in monetized family content in the first place — is covered in family vlogging and sharenting: what GDPR says about your own child's content.