Can a minor give permission to an influencer to use her images on his TikTok channel?

An influencer films minors for ‘challenges’ and posts it online without permission, resulting in severe harassment. The correctional court in Ghent ruled in a judgment of 27 October 2025 that this was not stalking, but did issue a conviction. This case demonstrates crystal clear that distributing images of children online is a serious violation of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), even if the perpetrator's ‘stalking’ intent cannot be proven.

The facts: from ‘format’ to suicidal thoughts

A well-known Ghent-based influencer (ImboVlogs) filmed minors on the street for his social media channels. These ‘formats’ were often disturbing:

• A 12-year-old girl (Girl 1) had to rate an unknown boy out of 10. She gave him 10/10, but got back 1/10 herself.
• A 13-year-old girl (Girl 2) was asked about her ‘relational past’ and the number of exes she had to name in exchange for money .

The influencer published these videos on TikTok and Instagram, where he had many thousands of followers, without the parents' permission.

The consequences, especially for the 12-year-old victim, were disastrous. The video was shared massively at her school. She faced a flood of “hurtful and offensive” hate comments , felt “stupid” , embarrassed and didn't want to come out again. The impact was so severe that she “contemplated suicide”. Her mother described the period as “hell” and was “afraid her daughter would do something to herself”.

Correctional court decision

The influencer was originally prosecuted for stalking (with the aggravating circumstance of a vulnerable victim). However, the court acquitted him for this.

Acquittal for stalking

The court held that for the crime of stalking (art. 442bis Criminal Code) requires specific intent. The perpetrator must have the intent to target a specific person (“as if they were his prey”) and confront them with “unremitting or recurring consequences” .

Although the influencer was “grossly negligent” about the harmful effects of his videos , the court ruled that intent to target the girls with hate speech was not proven. Gross negligence is not sufficient to meet the requisite intent for stalking, according to the ruling.

The conviction: a violation of the GDPR

However, the court did not leave the matter at that and requalified the facts. The influencer was convicted of unlawful processing of personal data, a criminal offense under section 222 of the personal data processing act of 30 July 2018.

The law criminalizes the “controller” who processes personal data without a legal basis in accordance with Article 6 of the GDPR.

So the court simply had to consider whether the influencer had a valid legal basis under Article 6 GDPR. The only possible legal basis was “consent”.

• The judgment notes that Girl 2 (age 13) “did not consent to processing”.
• For Girl 1 (age 12), the judgment establishes that “her legal representative did not consent”.

Because there was no valid consent (and thus no legal basis) in either case, the processing was unlawful and the crime proven.

“I didn't know”: error of law overruled

The influencer still tried to hide behind the argument that he did not know this was not allowed (so-called ‘un avoidbale error of law’). The court briskly dismissed this argument. A 24-year-old content creator should be expected to know “based on his own common sense and moral compass alone” that he needs permission to post sensitive videos of minors. As a professional, he should have informed himself correctly about the legislation.

The influencer was eventually sentenced to 60 hours of community service and had to pay €1,750 in damages to the 12-year-old victim and €800 to her mother.

Legal analysis and interpretation

This ruling, while drawing the correct conclusion, unnecessarily complicates the reasoning by referring to the specific rule for “online services” (Art. 8 GDPR and Article 7 of the Personal Data Processing Act of 30 July 2018). However, that rule does not apply here.

The legal reasoning is much simpler:

1. The law requires a legal basis: According to the GDPR, “consent” is the only possible legal basis for the processing of personal data by an influencer (Art. 6 GDPR).
2. Minors are legally incompetent: Under general Belgian civil law, a minor is in principle legally incompetent to decide independently on the (commercial) publication of his or her personal data.
3. Parents must consent: The authority to give this consent lies with the parents, as holders of parental authority.
4. Exception (information society service) does not apply: The special rule that does allow children from 13 years of age to give their own consent (Art. 8 GDPR and Art. 7 Personal Data Processing Act), only applies when the child itself purchases an online service (e.g. creates an account on TikTok). That was not the case here; the girls were the subject of the content, not the users of a service.
5. Conclusion: As the general rule applies, for both girls (both the 12-year-old and the 13-year-old), the influencer should have had explicit, informed parental consent.

The verdict clearly establishes that the mothers of both victims never gave that consent. Therefore, there was no legal basis, the processing was unlawful and the criminal conviction inevitable.

What this specifically means

• For content creators / influencers: The lesson of this ruling is crystal clear. If you depict and publish a minor recognizably, you always need the informed, specific and free consent of the parents. The child's own ‘consent’ on the street is legally worthless.
• For parents: You are in a very strong legal position. If images of your child are distributed without your consent, data protection law provides a direct and powerful legal recourse. This can result in both punishment for the perpetrator and compensation for your child.

Frequently asked questions (FAQ)

So does the age of the child (12 vs. 13) make any difference?
No, not in this particular situation. Because it did not involve the purchase of an online service, both the 12-year-old and the 13-year-old fall under the general rule of legal incapacity. Parental consent was required for both.

What if the influencer did seek parental consent?
Even then, that consent should have been “informed.” The parents should have known what channels the video would be on, the extent of its reach, and the risks of negative reactions. A quick ‘yes’ on the street is probably insufficient to count as ‘informed’ consent.

The influencer said he could not stop the hate reactions. Is that true?
Although he cannot control every third-party response, he does have a responsibility as a ‘controller’ (the channel operator). However, the court charged him especially heavily for the initial publication without permission. The fact that he posted the videos online in the first place created the risk of hateful reactions and is at the heart of the proven infringement.

Conclusion

This ruling highlights that influencers and content creators do not have legal free rein in Belgium. Publishing images of minors without explicit parental consent is a criminal violation of data protection law. A child's own ‘consent’ on the street is legally invalid.