New Jersey

In plain language

New Jersey's P.L.2025, c.355 (N.J.S.A. 34:2-21.65, 34:2-21.66) applies to children under 18. Once a child appears in 30% or more of a creator's compensated content over a 30-day period, the creator must set aside 50% of the child's share of compensation into a trust for that child.

Notes

• The introduced bill (May 2024) excluded self-produced vlogs by anyone under 16 from the 'vlogger' definition; the enacted law raised this to under 18 — confirmed from the Senate Budget & Appropriations Committee's redlined Second Reprint, not just the final text. A real correction the same research pass that flagged California's original mismodeling caught here too.
• Two private rights of action with different fault standards: no-fault for recordkeeping failures (no damages specified, framed as an enforcement action); 'knowing or reckless' for trust-account violations (actual damages, punitive damages, and attorney's fees) — same two-tier pattern as Illinois.
• Does not reuse New Jersey's existing Coogan-style child-performer trust provisions for theatrical/film work (reported elsewhere as N.J.S.A. 34:2-21.57 to -21.64, a flat 15% set-aside) — this is a separate, self-contained mechanism using the state's Uniform Transfers to Minors Act and Banking Act of 1948 definitions instead. That existing performer-trust statute's own terms were not independently verified here since it isn't what this row models.

Open items before this is fully reliable

• The trust-account duty (N.J.S.A. 34:2-21.66) applies only when the vlogger is a family member or caregiver of the minor — a non-family employer is subject only to general wage/tax law, not this trust rule. The engine does not check this scope condition; it assumes whoever runs a check is in the covered family/caregiver relationship.
• A second eligibility prong applies alongside the 30%-content-share threshold: the video must also have crossed the platform's own ad-monetization view threshold, or paid at least $0.10/view — same unmodeled second gate as Illinois's row.
• Threshold eligibility is assessed against the trailing 12 months (any 30-day window within that period meeting 30%), not a single simple rolling 30-day window — same simplification already noted on Illinois's row.
• When more than one minor qualifies in the same video segment, the statute splits the segment's total set-aside percentage EQUALLY among them, regardless of each child's individual content percentage — the engine computes each child's obligation independently and does not model this equal-split rule.
• The broader records requirement (6 specific items, disclosed to the minor on an ongoing basis) applies to any vlogger employing a minor — a wider duty than the family/caregiver-only trust rule; the engine's single recordsRequired boolean doesn't distinguish the two.

Source