Posted on 09/09/2019 4:13:42 PM PDT by RummyChick
An seven-year-old millionaire YouTuber may be facing an investigation by the Federal Trade Commission amid accusations that he pushed unwitting children into buying toys made by his sponsors.
Ryan Kaji is the star of Ryan ToysReview channel, which has 21 million subscribers, and sees him unbox and play with toys which he then reviews. The child is worth $22million and was last year named YouTube's highest earner by Forbes magazine.
The account is run by his parents, Shion Guan and his 35-year-old wife Kieu-Loan, who calls herself Loann.
Together, they have found themselves at the center of a row after a lobbying group said they did not make it clear to other children that he was pushing toys from companies that had sponsored him.
In a complaint filed to the FTC, consumer watchdog Truth In Advertising accused Ryan of not clearly disclosing paid sponsorship from brands such as Walmart.
They say that 90 percent of the family's videos include a paid-for product but that they do not always label them as such.
Google - which owns YouTube and takes a 45 percent cut of ad revenue from influencers - has not commented on the complaint.
When contacted by DailyMail.com, a spokesman referred back to a recent policy change in content designed for children which will stop personalized ads on all kids' content over the next four months.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
That’s about how ridiculous this sounds to me.
Start with fast food commercials.
They have another new show featuring their twin daughters who are toddlers.
It’s my understanding that the toys featured on the show are donated after they are used in the videos they make.
I’ve watched this show with small children.
I think the mom is really hyper on the show. Gets on my nerves. The kids I have watched this with don’t ask for the toys they see. They just watch to see how the toys work.
Should children be hidden away indoors and under burkas because there's pedo pervs out there?
This isn’t the government’s business and they should butt out.
Send the 7 year old to leavenworth. /s
Very good point. Paid for endorsements.
I guess RL will have to start mentioning his ‘brand’ inre the T shirts, and whatever he is hawking then taking up a good portion of the show ‘discussing’ it.
I REALLY like the ‘idea’ that the POLs should take a hint from NASCAR and wear a patch from all their ‘sponsors’ ESPECIALLY when voting on ‘favoring’ one company or another.
The press sees absolutely NO PROBLEM with a grifter from Arkansas whose only jobs he or his family had were a result of politics and people currying for favor.
Can’t ‘blame’ Walmart etal if the Govs wife is on the board BUT should be a mostly volunteer/honorary position not a 7 figure ‘make rain’ job.
The vagabond from IL who also NEVER had a ‘job’ has more homes than the average bear while lecturing about abusive personal wealth....
I personally think that once a person hits the #1 spot, doors maybe should open, after all there have only been 45 of them.
OTOH, don’t continually crucify a person who actually has WORKED and made a VERY GOOD living during his adult life while letting the ‘grifters & vagabonds’ skate.
No, and nice strawman. Ryan’s videos started when he was 4 years old and I don’t see the point of posting what started as family videos on the internet for all to see. In his bio it is stated that his mother has quit her job and is now his full time manager and channel moderator. It also states a new video is released every day. This kid is basically having a good chunk of his waking hours devoted to making his parents rich.
They didn’t pay off the Deep state visa political donations. A rookie mistake.
The kid makes me feel like an utter failure.
“This kid is basically having a good chunk of his waking hours devoted to making his parents rich.”
>>>>>>>
I bet most of that goes to the kid once he turns 18. There are laws in place that limit parental use of a minor child’s money.
It’s a little weird but for the most part I do believe that the parents are doing this for the kid’s future (plus they laid a golden egg for themselves too).
They could stop right now and put that money into a trust. Let’s say there is 10 million left after taxes and fees. Even at a weak 1.5% interest the kid could take home $150,000.00 per year and never touch the principle. I also hope the parents know that his views could drop to almost 0 at any time when the next cute tot comes along.
“They could stop right now and put that money into a trust. Let’s say there is 10 million left after taxes and fees. Even at a weak 1.5% interest the kid could take home $150,000.00 per year and never touch the principle. I also hope the parents know that his views could drop to almost 0 at any time when the next cute tot comes along.”
That’s an incredible amount for a kid that age, all thanks to YouTube views. The Internet has enabled some amazing things technologically , but this I never expected...
That said, we're talking about a 7-year-old. The kid was just playing with toys. Whatever business arrangements were in place were done by the parents.
It' not even a case of parents being responsible for the actions of minors. Usually, "minors" in this case refer to teens who get in trouble. This is a 7-year-old. It's like the stories of kindergarten kids kissing, and the boy being charged with sexual harassment.
Still, the full article never mentions brands, only Walmart, Toys R Us, Chuck E. Cheese (restaurant), Colgate (toys?) and Nickelodeon. Mostly distributors Who is the harmed party?
-PJ
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.