The decision by the Duke and Duchess of Sussex to limit the sharing of Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet’s faces on online platforms has long been a subject of public curiosity. Although the couple frequently posts family-related content since moving to the U.S. six years ago, they have consistently maintained their stance on protecting their children’s identities and privacy.

Speculation from the Online Community Recently, discussions on Reddit have sparked theories regarding a legal reason behind this decision. Many fans suggest that the Sussexes may be attempting to avoid the strict requirements of California’s Child Actors’ Bill, which went into effect in January 2025 to protect the financial rights of minors appearing in commercial content created by their parents.
Under the terms of Assembly Bill 1880 and Senate Bill 764, if a minor is the focal point of at least 30% of a “vlogger’s” or influencer’s compensated content within a month, a portion of that income must be protected in locked trust funds until the child turns 18.
Regarding this issue, one Reddit user noted: “Hóa ra California có một bộ luật gọi là ‘Dự luật Quyền của Vlogger Nhí’, yêu cầu cha mẹ phải bỏ tiền vào một quỹ tín thác cho trẻ em xuất hiện trên mạng xã hội vì mục đích thương mại. Tuy nhiên, có một lỗ hổng là nếu bạn không để lộ mặt của trẻ, bạn sẽ được miễn trừ khỏi luật này. Đây chỉ là một lý do khả thi khác cho việc tại sao gương mặt các con của họ luôn bị che giấu”.
The Reality of the “Legal Loophole” However, it should be noted that these laws are not limited to just showing a child’s face. The law stipulates that the financial compensation obligation is triggered if commercial content (video or images) uses the “likeness, name, or photograph of the minor” at a frequency exceeding the 30% threshold per month.
Although Meghan Markle has mentioned or posted images related to Princess Lilibet with significant frequency—specifically in 5 out of 8 Instagram posts during this past June—there is currently no definitive evidence confirming that the Sussexes’ decision to conceal their children’s faces stems entirely from an intent to circumvent the law. To date, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex have not issued any official comment regarding these speculations.
News
Influencer with over 2 million followers passes away suddenly at 30 – Final post haunts with a hidden message sent out
Influencer Paola Márquez has died at age 30, with police investigating a possible suicide. Spanish-language outlet El Sol de San Luis reported that Márquez was…
Scenes from the scene of the incident where a 50-year-old worker d!:ed from electrocution: Colleagues choke back tears and suppress their grief as they take a final look at their friend
A serious workplace accident occurred on Monday afternoon in the Laverton North area, west of Melbourne, claiming the life of…
1 minute ago: The 9 words uttered by Harry himself that left Princess Kate no longer able to tolerate her unruly brother-in-law
Princess Catherine and Prince Harry before the infamous schism (Image: Getty) A simple nine-word statement from Prince Harry after King Charles’s cancer diagnosis was…
The class of 007: Returning to D!:e Another Day – the high-tech action blockbuster you cannot miss
“Die Another Day”: The Final Highlight in Pierce Brosnan’s 007 Journey For espionage film enthusiasts, the 2002 work Die Another…
Additional CCTV footage reveals a harrowing scene of the Australian man’s frenzied rampage as he destroys the cafe
[Image: Facebook] It takes a special kind of energy to turn a quiet coffee stop into a scene of utter…
The family of the 16-year-old girl who drowned at Kingsbury Water Park has officially spoken out, revealing details about their beloved daughter for the first time
THE “devastated” family of a girl who drowned during the bank holiday heatwave have paid tribute to their beloved daughter….
End of content
No more pages to load






