Kidfluencers in Africa: an emerging opportunity or an emerging concern for the evolving capacities of the African child?

1.1 The role of children in social media influencing

The presence of children on social media platforms has increased significantly over the last decade.23 Parents sharing social media content featuring their children is a fairly common practice and it is not unusual to see photographs or videos of children’s milestones or other achievements on social media.24 This phenomenon has become known as ‘sharenting’.25 The information shared in this practice commonly takes the form of photographs or video material of children.26 Sharenting behaviours have increased exponentially and have extended to the realm of social media influencing with the development of ‘kidfluencers’.27 A ‘kidfluencer’ can be defined as a child who is involved in the practice of social media influencing alongside or under the guidance or instruction of the parent as part of the parent’s ‘brand’.28 The content posted in this practice thus includes or primarily features these children.29

Kidfluencers participate in several different forms of content, depending on the specific niche of the account.30 Examples include prank videos, occurrences in the child’s daily life, fashion content or toy reviews.31 Vlogging is a particularly successful area of participation for kidfluencers,32 the content of which can also concern more personal areas of the child’s life such as their health or any inter-personal challenges that they may face.33

Accounts featuring children often reach the same number of followers as accounts exclusively featuring adult influencers. In some instances, the number of followers is even higher.34 Africa is not exempt from this trend of kidfluencers and their growing online presence: An example is Kairo Forbes, a young kidfluencer, who has attained such a high level of success that she has worked with large companies such as Cotton On Kids35 and Roblox in advertising their products on her social media pages.36

Another example is Desmond Koolen, a young boy who has made large amounts of money from the business of social media influencing,37 and whose videos on TikTok generate millions of views per video.38 These are but two examples of a phenomenon that has grown rapidly across the African continent. International television network Nickelodeon has a ‘Best African Kidfluencer’ category as part of its annual Kids Choice Awards.39 This indicates not only the extent to which social media influencing has grown, but also indicates how relevant it has become on the African continent. Although social media influencing is a fairly new phenomenon, it has numerous established ‘benefits’. This article will first consider the effect of social media influencing as a route to celebrity status.

1.2 Practical effects of social media influencing

Social media influencing, including participation by children in the practice, provides an opportunity for anyone to become a celebrity and also enables established celebrities to expand their platforms.40 Popularity is a core feature of social media influencing.41 If a social media user is not popular, it is impossible for them to reach influencer status and derive the benefits from such status.42 The more popular an influencer becomes, the more opportunities they are able to access, which then further increases their following.43 It is also for this reason that established celebrities turn to social media influencing as a means to expand their platforms.44 For example, Kim Kardashian45 has created a joint TikTok account with her young daughter and because of this, is able to access a new audience to whom her products can be marketed.46 This path to celebrity is achieved by publishing content that is highly curated, often involving aspects of the influencer’s personal life.47 Such sharing of information allows the audience to feel closer to the influencer, which then further increases viewership and, by extension, increases the influencer’s popularity.48 This increase in popularity and path to fame is not, however, free of consequences of its own.

One of the natural consequences of fame is being deprived of a level of privacy that one can ordinarily expect.49 The exact nature of this deprivation depends on the individual in question and the reasons for their fame, but influencers who do not have a commercial objective or specialisation often ‘rely on developments in their personal lives to connect with their followers and establish their self-branding’.50 This sacrifice in privacy allows followers to feel a connection with the influencer and to engage to a greater extent with their content.51

There have been examples of influencers who have been negatively impacted by this decrease in privacy, given what their followers have done with the information obtained. For example, popular influencers ‘The ACE Family’, who shared lifestyle content, had to relocate due to their home address being released to the public after it was seen in the background of one of their videos.52 Being a celebrity does not only result in a loss of privacy, but could also result in a loss of control over how one’s privacy is managed and maintained.53 This is particularly prevalent in the context of the internet as studies have shown that the internet has transformed into a space in which content is not only shared, but also reshared to a very significant extent.54 TikTok, a social media platform that is particularly popular with influencers, provides an example of the way in which content is able to easily resurface even where it was initially deleted by the initial poster.55 This can also deprive the influencer of a level of autonomy that they would have ordinarily had over themselves and their information.56

However, many influencers accept, and are even willing, to ‘abandon’ their autonomy in this way, as fame can generate significant wealth.57 Becoming a celebrity can create various streams of income to the influencer. These streams can take the form of sponsorships, paid posts or appearance opportunities.58 An example of a very successful child social media influencer is Charli D’Amelio,59 who was able to earn millions of dollars per year from her social media influencing career.60 Large amounts of money are often paid for a single post in cases in which the influencer is particularly popular.61 Social media and the development of influencing has not only changed marketing strategies and opportunities, but has had an effect that extends beyond the online community and impacts society at large.

Given the increasing presence of social media and social media marketing involving children as a marketing strategy, it is necessary to consider how the child is impacted by this practice and how such impact affects these children’s rights.62

This burden to protect and secure the child’s best interests applies in all matters concerning the child.63 Thus, the burden does not cease to exist within the digital environment.64 This article will now consider the relevant regulatory frameworks pertaining to the digital environment.

2.1 Direct regulation

The African regional framework encompasses both ‘direct’ and what can be referred to as ‘indirect’ forms of regulation of the digital environment. For the purpose of this article, direct regulation refers to general comments and treaties which directly deal with social media. Indirect forms of regulation will refer to conventions and general comments which do not directly regulate the digital environment but can be interpreted to apply to the digital environment. The most direct form of social media regulation generally in Africa is the AU Convention on Cyber Security and Personal Data Protection (Malabo Convention).80 Adopted in June 2014, the Convention aims to establish a cyber security regulatory framework in the African context.81 The Malabo Convention addresses various areas of cyber regulation, including security, advertising, electronic contracts and electronic transactions.82

The Malabo Convention defines ‘child pornography’ in article 1 thereof, and includes it as one of the offences subject to criminal prosecution. However, this is the only specific mention of children throughout the entirety of the Convention, and it does not provide any other regulatory guidance on the issue of children and social media, nor even the internet more generally. This must be regarded as an oversight given the vulnerability of children and their need for special protection.83 This oversight is exacerbated in the Personal Data Protection Guidelines for Africa,84 pertaining to the Malabo Convention, which also does not provide any specific guidelines pertaining to children.

The African Children’s Committee, in its General Comment 7,85 makes specific mention of protecting children in the digital environment,86 albeit again merely in the context of the prevention of child pornography and sexual exploitation. General Comment 7 interprets this protection to extend to cyberspace and provides that the protections afforded to the child under regional law do not only apply to offline activities - particularly with the growth of the internet making child online sexual exploitation a pressing matter.87 Additionally, General Comment 7 acknowledges the difficulties with regulating digital environments resulting from the internet’s transnational nature.88 It advocates for transnational cooperation between member states to ensure that children are protected from being sexually exploited.89 States are also encouraged to analyse the behaviour of children online to determine where and how children should be protected in this space.90 However, while doing so, states should ensure that, in their analysis, the privacy of children is still protected.91 Therefore, I contend that while General Comment 7 does provide and advocate for the regulation of the digital environment, it does so in a specific, limited context. It does not extend to all aspects of social media and children, particularly not social media influencing.92

The Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), as a sub-regional body, has also enacted a binding data protection regimen for its member states.93 Regrettably, despite its binding nature, ECOWAS’s Supplementary Act on Personal Data Protection94 also does not provide any detailed guidance on the protection of personal information of children.95

2.2 Indirect regulation

While direct regulation of the digital environment by the regional regulatory framework is evidently lacking, there have been arguments in favour of interpreting regional laws in such a way as to encompass the digital environment within their ambit, and thereby to make up for this oversight.96 For instance, the right to privacy can be interpreted to extend to the digital environment and, in doing so, to create obligations for states, as well as parents or guardians.97 The wording of article 10 of the African Children’s Charter, the privacy provision, also uses language that can encompass the digital environment. For example, the use of ‘correspondence’ can apply to the digital environment because of it being used as a medium to facilitate communication.98 Arguably, this indicates that the right to privacy can be interpreted in such a way as to give protection to the child in the digital environment. Nevertheless, the fact remains that this protection is merely implied and is neither discussed at length nor even explicitly mentioned.99

General Comment 7 takes a similar approach to deriving protection from another right and thus provides that the child’s right to be protected against sexual exploitation also extends to the digital environment.100 This is notable given that there is no specific mention of the digital environment within the wording of article 27 of the African Children’s Charter itself. However, the African Children’s Committee refers to new and emerging forms of sexual extortion online, and recognises that legislation should be developed to protect children from these emergent forms of sexual exploitation.101 This can be seen as yet another example of how the interpretation of rights in a particular way can be used to provide the child with protection in the digital environment - even where there is no dedicated section nor any specific mention thereof in the original wording.

2.3 Other regional multi-stakeholder inputs

There are other regional organisations which have also contributed to the policy sphere with regards to the digital environment. These policies, however, are not legally binding or enforceable. For example, Agenda 2040102 was drafted by the African Children’s Committee and sets out those aspirations which the African region aims to achieve by 2040. These aspirations include broadening the child’s access to the digital environment, as well as protecting them from sexual exploitation within said environment.103

Furthermore, Resolution 17/2022,104 adopted by the African Children’s Committee Working Group on Children’s Rights and Business, sets out a host of protections that should be implemented by both states and civil society. Promisingly, its focus is specifically on the digital environment. The aim of this resolution is to offer guidance to states, the private sector and civil society on how the digital environment should be regulated.105 These guidelines include, but are not limited to, calling on states to ratify the Malabo Convention, to enact data protection measures and to create child protection frameworks.106 The resolution further calls on the private sector to assist with the implementation of these frameworks and to ensure that due diligence practices which place children’s online safety at their forefront are enacted.107 Civil society is also called upon to spread awareness about children’s online safety and to cooperate with the private and governmental sectors in doing so.108

Additionally, the AU Commission’s Department of Health, Humanitarian Affairs and Social Affairs implemented a programme to protect children from online sexual exploitation.109 There are also other policy documents implemented by the African Commission’s various departments which focus on the prevention of the sexual exploitation of children online.110 Unfortunately, these policy documents have been met with mixed responses from member states, as not all member states regard these policies as priorities.111

The prevention of child sexual exploitation in the digital environment is evidently an important aspect of these regional policies, even when these policies neglect to mention other forms of online child exploitation.112 Overall, there is thus a lack of a robust or vast body of regional law which regulates the digital environment that specifically mentions children.113 It also remains concerning that the few policies which do exist tend to have very poor ratification statistics - as illustrated, for example, by the Malabo Convention and the particularly slow ratifications thereof by member states.114 In 2024, the AU took a very specific and pointed step in the drafting of the AU Online Safety and Empowerment Policy (AU Online Safety Policy).

2.4 African Union’s Online Safety and Empowerment Policy

The Policy acknowledges and advocates for the access to opportunities presented by the online environment for children.115 In addition, it also advocates for measures to be taken to protect children from the potential harms.116

The Policy highlights that many of the existing regulatory frameworks do not deal with the digital environment and children’s relationship thereto in a dynamic and specific enough way. Moreover, it provides that a need to harmonise laws in order to achieve effective regulation is necessary.117 The Policy demands strong commitments to child online safety and an approach that integrates multi-stakeholders.118 Of particular relevance to this paper, the participation of children is one of the measures set out in the Implementation plan of the Policy.119 This highlights the importance of child participation in the eyes of the African Union. The Policy also calls on businesses and the corporate sector to act responsibly when engaging with children’s use of social media, a call that would be particularly salient in the case of kidfluencers.

This Policy indicates a shift by the AU towards a call for better regulation and empowerment of children online. The Policy itself, however, also highlights many of the inadequacies present within the existing regulatory framework. This paper will now place specific focus on the evolving capacities of the kidfluencer.

4.1 Minimum age thresholds

Part of recognising the evolving capacities of the child means recognising that there is a stage at which a child may not be able to provide consent or unassisted consent to certain acts.143 Minimum age thresholds have often been introduced to deal with this. However, in the case of kidfluencing, the implementation of minimum age thresholds is a more complicated matter.

The social media platforms, which are often used for kidfluencing, do have minimum age requirements for the creation of an account on the platform.144 This means that, theoretically speaking, children under the age of thirteen cannot independently create or manage their own social media accounts.145 These children need to be assisted by their parents in the opening and running of these accounts, or the parents can open these accounts and run them on the child’s behalf.146

This article takes the position that these minimum age thresholds imposed by the terms and conditions of the platforms, have the potential to protect younger kidfluencers from their own immaturity by not allowing them to share content independently on said platforms. This results, however, in the parents being given the responsibility and right to make the decision on whether to share content of said child on social media or not. Parents are empowered to make decisions on behalf of their children where this may be necessary as part of their parental responsibilities and rights. This empowerment, however, decreases as the child matures and their capacity increases.147

A challenge arises as the regional regulatory frameworks applicable to social media generally do not provide a process which informs parents of the risks associated with sharing their children on social media in the process of kidfluencing, or with information around social media more generally. In so doing, parents are automatically ‘assumed’ to be in a position where they can make the best decision for their child in this context.

Furthermore, what ‘the evolving capacities of the child’ also recognises is that older children have an increased capacity to make decisions for themselves, with or without parental assistance. This component of the ‘evolving capacities of the child’ recognises the autonomy of the child.

However, there is no minimum age indicator that is imposed by any of the regional regulatory frameworks. This means that there is no age at which the regulatory frameworks presume that children have the capacity to consent to the publication of content of themselves online or at which they are presumed to be consulted at any stage in the decision-making process as kidfluencers. This can diminish the recognition of the child’s evolving capacities as it then fails to recognise both the child’s agency, and the younger child’s need for protection.148

It should also be noted that minimum age thresholds are not perfect metrics as they are merely indicators of capacity, and not confirmations thereof.149 There may still be circumstances where parents would need to consent even if a minimum age indicator were to exist and the child were as old as or older than this indicator, such as in circumstances in which children may have an intellectual disability which affects their maturity or even where a particular child is simply not mature enough.150

4.2 Sharing of personal information

Kidfluencers are also subject to the sharing of personal information or information that is not usually accessible to outsiders.151 This is because many influencers achieve success by publishing content that is highly curated, often involving aspects of the influencer’s personal life as there is a reliance on the creation of the parasocial relationship between audience and influencer.152 Doing this allows the audience to feel closer to the influencer, and encourages them to engage with their content, making the influencer more public.153 This is particularly true in cases in which influencers are not already established celebrities, such as kidfluencers. These influencers rely on ‘developments in their personal lives to connect with their followers and establish their self-branding’.154 In this context, this would mean that the influencer’s entire platform consists of the sharing of personal and intimate details about the child.155

Such personal information can range from something as simple as the child’s age to information about the child’s health, such as medical conditions.156 Some parents even go so far as to film the child influencer experiencing medical episodes to ‘educate’ their audience.157 Because of the uniqueness of their content, there is also an increased public interest and concern, which then increases the following of the influencer.158 Some influencers have gone so far as to ‘manufacture’ storylines about their children suffering from serious medical conditions.159 Consequently, such videos have reached millions of viewers.160 This indicates how receptive the public is to this kind of content.161 Resultingly, very large audiences are able to access very personal information about children.162

The regional framework does not provide much detailed guidance on the protection of the personal information of children. The Malabo Convention comes the closest to providing such data protection, however it does not specifically deal with kidfluencing. This means that it can miss many of the nuances of the practice. Examples of these nuances can include, for instance, the way in which information is shared and reshared in the process of kidfluencing, the profit-making incentive which motivates the data sharing, the different way kidfluencing occurs on different platforms, among others.

Not even the binding sub-regional frameworks, such as ECOWAS, go so far as to do this. Even though article 10 of the African Children’s Charter, the privacy provision, can be interpreted to include the digital environment such protection is merely implied. In the case of children, I contend that a mere implication of protecting their privacy is not enough. Children are vulnerable members of society, who need the strongest protection.

The AU has, however, taken steps in the form of resolutions and guidelines to advocate for greater data protection for children, which should be regarded as a step in the right direction. However, binding regulation remains lacking.

The decision to grant this access to the personal information is not always going to be made by the child themselves; this could be due to the child being incapable of forming a view on the matter, or the child simply not being given an opportunity to express their view.163 Additionally, kidfluencers - even if given the opportunity - would be providing consent to their parents in relation to something which occurs within the family environment.164 This can be a daunting position to place a child in as they may feel obliged to ‘please’ their caregivers, upon whom they are reliant or may be offered rewards for their compliance.165 Shari Franke, a former kidfluencer, reported that her parents would convince her to participate in family vlogging with promises of family holidays or other material goods, making it difficult to decline.166 An empirical study also reflected this acceptance by children that the parents are the authority and they are unable to say no because of this power imbalance.167 It should not be forgotten that children exist primarily within the family environment and structure, and conflict within this environment can have a more profound effect on the child than conflict outside thereof.168The South African Constitutional Court, as an example, provided that:

‘[i]n the age of social media, the immediate and far-reaching dissemination of information means that disclosure and the choice to disclose, if and when a person is ready to do so, is of practical significance.’169

The autonomy of the kidfluencer is impaired or not even recognised at all when participating in influencing.170

The recognition of, and facilitation of, the child’s autonomy is an important part of the evolving capacities of the child. Kidfluencers do not have an assured opportunity to participate in the decision to share their personal information, nor do they even receive an assured participation opportunity when this information is reshared by the large audiences to which they are exposed. This stands in contrast to the child’s evolving capacities because of the importance of participation to its recognition. While it could be argued that some children are old enough to decide to share such personal information, it does not necessarily follow that said children understand the implications of the permanency of the internet for their future selves. Moreover, the adult, which the kidfluencer will become, may not be in agreement with sharing this information and will suffer the consequences of this decision. This is precisely what recognising the evolving capacities of the child seeks to address.

4.3 Audience size

Once the content of the kidfluencer is shared, and the audience has grown, there is a lack of control over what the audience will do with the content, or whether and how they will further distribute such content.171 Once the content is subsequently reshared - as is often the case - audience sizes increase even further.172 TikTok, for example, frequently allows older content to resurface, with content becoming popular years after it was first posted.173 The unpredictability of exposing children and their personal information on social media can have various negative impacts on the child.174

Allowing large masses of the general public access to the personal information of children through social media, can also pose safety risks for the child in both the short and long-term.175 Those who seek to harm the child could potentially gain information about the child, which was posted for the purposes of social media influencing, in order to harm them.176 All of this has the potential to occur, without the child having an opportunity to consent thereto. Even if the parents were obliged and willing to engage with the child on this matter, it can be difficult to expect adults to ‘actively’ listen when it is challenging for the parent to anticipate what exactly would be considered ‘harmful’ content to share.177 This is on account of the lack of processes in place to ensure that adults have this information, and the empowering provisions appear to merely assume that parents will know what decision would be in the child’s best interests.178 This assumption is a flawed and dangerous one, particularly in circumstances in which the consequences of a decision based on this flawed assumption can persist into adulthood.179 Furthermore, even where parents intend to make the best decision for their child in terms of online disclosures of information concerning their child, it does not always follow that such decision was indeed the best one.180Additionally, these consequences amount to the formation of a lasting ‘digital identity’,181 one which the child may not have knowingly, or willingly, contributed to.182

The existing regulatory framework does not provide a process whereby any form of information is given to the decision maker (or the kidfluencer) before the decision is made to share the content on social media for kidfluencing purposes. I regard this to be a significant oversight when considering the implications for the child’s privacy, both in the short and long term.183 While the regulatory frameworks make attempts to address this, this article argues that these are not sufficient. For instance, the frameworks do not address the concept of a ‘digital identity’ and the lasting implications of forming one. The safety risks that are posed by sharing children on social media when doing so generally, or for the purposes of influencing. These safety risks can also last in perpetuity.184

While the regulatory frameworks provide opportunities to request that information be removed, this article takes the position that this is too little, much too late. Nothing on the internet is ever truly deleted and even if it were able to be, the consequences of such exposure can never be undone.185

4.4 Due weight requirement

This due weight requirement is a familiar one in child law, and forms an important part of recognising and enabling the child’s evolving capacities, but it is often difficult to enforce or assess.186 Allocating ‘due weight’ is done in accordance with metrics such as the child’s maturity, age, stage of development and capacity.187 This entails a consideration of these metrics by the decision-maker.188

Firstly, the challenge with kidfluencing is that there is not even an assured mechanism for the child to express a view, there is accordingly no guarantee that there will even be a view to attach weight to at all, or even to enter into a determination of whether ‘due weight’ was attached to such view.

Secondly, even if it were to be argued that the regulatory frameworks do provide an opportunity for the child to express their views and attach due weight thereto, there is no requirement to account to the child themselves with regards to the decision made, or how their views were taken into account.189 If a child cannot consent for themselves, the parents are empowered to simply grant this consent on the child’s behalf with nothing further said or needing to be explained to the child at any stage.190 Without such express requirement, there is no indication that even a mere expectation exists that the child’s views will be given due weight to.

4.5 Diversity of actors

Alongside the issues discussed, there are a diversity of arenas and actors at play which makes effective, uniform regulation challenging.191 For instance, minimum age indicators where they may be imposed by legislation are complicated by the terms of service of the relevant social media platforms used by influencers.192 This can lead to jurisdictional challenges when practically implementing the laws and terms of service of service which do exist.193 The AU has also identified that the global nature of the digital environment brings with it cross-border challenges, but also an opportunity for different jurisdictions to work together to achieve effective regulation.194 At present, the regulatory frameworks in existence do not set out a procedure according to which the different stakeholders should work together to regulate or manage kidfluencing and the consequences thereof.

4.6 Difficulty of a case-by-case assessment

It is also difficult to assess each individual child’s level of capacity, making the institution and implementation of a regulatory framework to protect the child’s evolving capacities a difficult exercise to conduct.195 Even if a nuanced, robust and comprehensive regulatory framework did exist, it would still be a challenge to conduct and monitor an individualised assessment. An empirical study conducted found dissensus amongst children’s level of comfort when it comes to what content they felt satisfied with sharing on social media.196 Some children expressed discomfort with the content their parents shared about them, while others reported no concerns.197 This indicates that different children have different levels of comfortability with social media, which means that a broad assessment would be insufficient to address this.

5.1 Individual empowerment

On an individual level, kidfluencing can be empowering for African children. Children themselves have reported that social media has benefitted them in teaching them new skills and learning information, and gives them a platform to express themselves.198 It gives the child access to a larger audience who may be more equipped to listen to the child’s points of view when expressing their opinions and can be a means to influence policy change in other areas, as but one example.199 Overall, the digital environment affords children ‘diverse development opportunities’, as confirmed by the African Union.200 Examples of these development opportunities include e-education tools and the right to play.201

5.2 Expansion of discourse and change in narrative

On a broader level, social media generally has been shown to have impacts on the expansion of discourse and provided a platform to share experiences with similarly minded communities, or for the purposes of educating.202 This article regards this to be empowering for African children in particular as it can provide them with a platform to connect and share their cultures. The African region is subject to significant stereotyping, and the global community tends to lack knowledge about the African reality.203 Content shared on social media in the process of influencing can not only shift narratives, but in accordance with this shift in narratives it can also enable tangible societal and political transformation and impact.204 However, kidfluencing is a profit-deriving process and these benefits are merely secondary to these profit-making goals as discussed in this article. Given the implications for the child’s evolving capacities, this article takes the view that the achievement of these secondary goals should not overshadow the recognition of these evolving capacities.

5.3 Duty towards family and community

The benefits deriving from kidfluencing can also be beneficial for the community the child forms part of. This is because kidfluencing is primarily a profit-deriving tool.205 These benefits are particularly significant and valuable in the African region. Given that Africa faces high levels of poverty, kidfluencing can present a way to alleviate the pressure of these circumstances on children as social media influencing is also not an expensive endeavour and is largely accessible.

Article 31 of the African Children’s Charter recognises that the child has duties and responsibilities towards the family. Sloth-Nielsen and Mezmur refer to the ‘language of duties’ within the African human rights context.206 This means that the importance of the group or community is recognised alongside the importance and significance of the individual.207 Specifically, article 31(a) provides that children have the duty to assist the family in the case of need. Accordingly, it needs to be acknowledged that this opportunity to work, earn an income and opportunity for upward social mobility, can be a way in which the child can fulfil this sense of responsibility towards the family. This responsibility, culminating in a duty towards the family is not, however, unconstrained.208

The duties on the child are subject to the child’s age and ability as well as limitations as contained in the African Children’s Charter.209 This article argues that kidfluencing and the implications thereof can go beyond what is appropriate for children in terms of, for example, the impacts on their evolving capacities.210 Moreover, the constraints on article 31 entail ‘an open-ended consideration of the child’s evolving capacity and ability’. The second constraint to which article 31 is subject is that it does not allow for children’s duty towards the family to be used as a justification for violation of their rights as contained in the African Children’s Charter.

Accordingly, while children do have a duty and responsibility towards the family in terms of the African Children’s Charter, and kidfluencing can present a way to financially, or otherwise,211 fulfil this duty, the manifestation of this duty in the present context - particularly in terms of recognising the evolving capacities of the child - is unconstrained. Moreover, this lack of constraint can manifest in a complete disregard for the child’s evolving capacities, as has been illustrated in this article. This article therefore takes the position that given the implications for the evolving capacities of the child, the child’s duty towards the family should not be used as a sole justification for non-recognition of the kidfluencer’s evolving capacities.