Judicial Authorization Requirement by Meta for Minors Appearing in Videos

If you are a content creator, digital influencer, or simply a parent who shares family life on monetized social media profiles, you have likely already received—or soon will receive—a notification from Meta. The company behind Instagram, Facebook, and Threads has begun requiring a court authorization (judicial permit) for the participation of children and adolescents in content with a commercial purpose in Brazil.

The announcement has generated uncertainty and some misunderstandings, including the belief that parents are now prohibited from posting photos of their children. That is not the case. However, the change is real, supported by a solid legal framework, and requires immediate attention from individuals who earn income through content creation. Let us examine what has actually changed.

Where Did This Requirement Come From?

Contrary to appearances, Meta did not create a new rule. Rather, it was required to comply with a legal requirement that has existed for decades but had largely been overlooked in the digital environment.

The Brazilian Federal Constitution prohibits the employment of minors under the age of 16, except as apprentices from the age of 14 (Article 7, XXXIII). The Child and Adolescent Statute (ECA) further provides, under Article 149, that the participation of children and adolescents in artistic activities with an economic purpose depends on prior judicial authorization.

For this reason, children appearing in television shows, films, theater productions, and advertising campaigns have long been required to obtain judicial authorization from the Juvenile Court. What has changed is the extension of this rationale to the digital environment, driven by three recent developments:

1. Action by the Labor Prosecution Office (MPT)

A civil investigation identified multiple child-centered social media accounts engaged in commercial activities through product endorsements, livestreams, receipt of donations, and similar practices. These activities were characterized as child artistic labor performed without the required judicial authorization.

As a result, the Labor Courts ordered Meta to require prior judicial authorization for the participation of children and adolescents in commercial content, subject to a daily fine of R$50,000 per minor in an irregular situation.

In March 2026, Meta entered into a judicial settlement agreement with the Brazilian Labor Prosecution Office (MPT) and the Public Prosecutor’s Office of São Paulo, which was approved by the 7th Labor Court of São Paulo.

2. The Digital ECA (Law No. 15,211/2025)

The new legislation expressly expanded protections for children and adolescents in digital environments, encompassing privacy, personal data protection, image rights, and online safety.

3. Decree No. 12,880/2026

The regulatory decree implementing the Digital ECA established the requirement of judicial authorization for the publication of children’s daily routines on monetized or sponsored social media profiles, creating one of the few genuinely new obligations applicable to individuals and organizations.

In summary, legislation, regulation, and judicial rulings converged. Meta simply became the first major platform to operationalize this requirement.

What Exactly Requires Judicial Authorization?

This is the central issue and the source of most misconceptions.

The requirement does not apply to personal, family-oriented social media use. Posting photographs of a child’s birthday on a personal account, without any commercial purpose, remains a legitimate exercise of family life.

Judicial authorization becomes necessary when there is a direct or indirect economic purpose.

According to Meta’s guidance, authorization is required in three principal situations:

1. Content monetized through the platform’s revenue-generation programs;
2. Brand partnership content registered through Meta’s branded content tools;
3. Sponsored publications, regardless of who compensates the activity.

A significant detail often overlooked is that the rule applies regardless of whether the minor is the content creator’s child, another family member, or any individual under the age of 18 participating in the content.

In practice, the requirement may apply to:

• Monetized accounts where a child is the principal content creator (“child influencers”);
• Parents’ social media accounts that generate revenue while frequently featuring their children;
• Advertising campaigns featuring minors using or recommending products;
• Receipt of products, gifts, sponsorships, or barter arrangements, which may constitute economic value even where no direct payment is received.

What Are the Risks of Ignoring the Rule?

The risks arise on two fronts.

Platform-Level Consequences

Meta has indicated that accounts lacking the required documentation may be suspended or permanently removed from Instagram, Facebook, and Threads.

Accounts that fail to provide proof of authorization may also lose access to monetization tools, such as:

• Bonus programs;
• Paid subscriptions;
• Virtual gifts and donations;
• Other revenue-generating features.

For creators who have spent years building an audience and revenue stream, this risk is not theoretical—it directly affects their business model.

Legal Consequences

The monetization of a minor’s image without prior judicial authorization may be characterized as unlawful child labor, potentially resulting in:

• Protective measures imposed by Juvenile Courts;
• Liability for parents or legal guardians;
• Intervention by the Public Prosecutor’s Office.

Furthermore, the use of a child’s image involves the processing of children’s personal data, which enjoys enhanced protection under Article 14 of the Brazilian General Data Protection Law (LGPD) and under the Digital ECA.

A child’s image is therefore not merely a labor-law issue; it involves the circulation of sensitive personal information in an environment where content may be copied, stored, and reused indefinitely, even after deletion.

What Is a Judicial Authorization (Alvará Judicial) and How Does It Work?

A judicial authorization is a permit issued by the Juvenile Court that legally authorizes the participation of a child or adolescent in artistic or content-creation activities involving an economic purpose.

It is not a mere bureaucratic formality.

Each request is analyzed individually, and the court evaluates whether the activity preserves the minor’s:

• School attendance;
• Physical and mental health;
• Leisure time;
• Overall development.

Judicial authorizations commonly establish safeguards such as:

• Limits on working hours;
• Compatibility with school schedules;
• Allocation of part of the earnings for the benefit of the child;
• Additional protective measures.

Its purpose is not to prohibit participation but rather to ensure adequate protection.

Obtaining authorization requires:

• A well-founded petition;
• Supporting documentation;
• A detailed description of the activity;
• Information regarding the monetization model;
• Evidence of measures adopted to protect the child.

The quality and completeness of the application often influence both the outcome and the scope of the authorization granted.

What Should Content Creators Do Now?

If minors participate in your content—whether your own children or any other child or adolescent—it is important to conduct an honest assessment:

1. Determine whether the minor’s participation is occasional and family-oriented or frequent and integral to the content strategy.
2. Identify all revenue sources associated with the content, including branded content, sponsored posts, platform monetization, gifts, barter arrangements, and product placements.
3. Assess whether judicial authorization is required and, if so, seek legal counsel to file the appropriate request before the Juvenile Court.
4. Review agreements with brands and agencies, as proof of legal compliance is increasingly becoming a contractual requirement.

Compliance is not merely a way to avoid sanctions. It protects the family’s digital assets, ensures legal certainty in relationships with advertisers, and, most importantly, guarantees that a child’s online presence occurs within regulated and supervised parameters.

The digital environment has matured, and regulation has followed. Those who act proactively transform a legal obligation into a mark of professionalism. Those who ignore it assume a risk that now has a name, a monetary penalty, and a court case number.