Kids Safety on Set Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Rep. Beyer, Donald S. [D-VA-8]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Sep 3, 2026
Bottom line
This bill establishes federal requirements for background checks in the entertainment industry to enhance child safety, imposing significant penalties on production entities for non-compliance.
What it actually does
This bill mandates criminal background checks for individuals involved in entertainment industry projects who will have supervisory duties, compulsory authority over, or frequent or private interaction with minors. The checks are specifically for offenses involving violence, sex, stalking, or minors, and the cost is capped at $100 per check, paid by the entertainment entity. Non-compliance can result in severe civil monetary penalties and immediate production halts.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue this bill is a crucial step to protect minors working in the entertainment industry from potential abuse and exploitation by ensuring that adults in positions of authority or frequent contact undergo necessary vetting. They emphasize the importance of a safe working environment for child actors and crew members, citing past incidents as evidence of the need for stricter safeguards.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that this bill imposes an undue regulatory burden on the entertainment industry, potentially increasing production costs and administrative overhead. Concerns could also be raised about the scope of 'entertainment industry entity' or 'employee' definitions, and whether the penalties are disproportionately severe, potentially leading to job losses or production delays over administrative issues.
The bill is very short and straightforward, making it highly accessible for a reader to understand its core provisions and implications within a short timeframe.
Section 2
Mandatory Criminal Background Checks for Individuals Interacting with Minors
This section requires individuals in the entertainment industry to undergo a criminal background check if they have supervisory duties, compulsory authority over, or frequent or private interaction with minors who are not their own children or legal wards. The check must be completed within 90 days of starting work or acquiring ownership interest, be an FBI Live Scan or equivalent, screen only for offenses involving sex, violence, stalking, or minors, and cost no more than $100, paid for by the entertainment industry entity.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision directly addresses safety concerns for minors by proactively identifying and excluding individuals with a history of relevant offenses, thereby creating a safer working environment.
Critics contend
Critics may argue that the scope of individuals covered is too broad, potentially impacting many roles that have minimal interaction with minors, and that the administrative burden and cost, while capped, could still be substantial for smaller productions.
Tradeoffs
This provision balances the imperative of child safety with the administrative and financial burden placed on entertainment entities and the privacy considerations of individuals undergoing checks.
Section 3
Civil Penalties and Production Halts for Violations
If an entertainment industry entity employs someone in violation of the background check mandate, the Attorney General can seek a civil monetary penalty up to twice the total production cost of the project the employee is involved in. Additionally, the Attorney General must seek a temporary restraining order to immediately halt all project production activity involving the employee, followed by preliminary or permanent injunctions until the employee is compliant, terminated, or divests significant ownership interest and loses production access rights.
Section 4
Key Definitions for Scope and Applicability
This section defines critical terms such as 'compulsory authority' (authority to compel a minor's action, including by public figure status or ownership), 'employee' (anyone signing a legal agreement, credited adults, corporate officers, beneficial owners with privileged set access), 'entertainment industry entity' (broadly covers creation, production, promotion, distribution of entertainment, excluding journalism and Creative Commons works), 'minor' (under 18), 'supervisory duties,' and 'entertainment industry project.'
The definition of 'compulsory authority' includes authority vested by 'status as a public figure to compel any minor to perform any action.'
Section 4(1)
Why it matters:While standard legislative practice to define terms comprehensively, the specific inclusion of 'public figure' might be less obvious and potentially controversial if highlighted, as it extends the mandate to individuals whose influence is not based on formal employment roles.
Case for: Proponents would argue that public figures, by virtue of their influence and celebrity, can exert significant pressure on minors, and therefore should be subject to the same scrutiny as those with formal supervisory roles to prevent potential exploitation or undue influence.
Case against: Critics might argue this is an overly broad and subjective criterion, difficult to define and enforce consistently, potentially infringing on free association or creating a chilling effect for well-meaning public figures who interact with minors in a professional context.
Estimated impact: Potentially expands the scope of individuals requiring background checks to a wide range of celebrities, influencers, and other public figures who may interact with minors on set, even without formal 'supervisory duties' or direct employment by the entity.
The term 'employee' is defined to include 'any individual that signs a waiver, release, or legal agreement... and all credited adults, corporate officers, and beneficial owners with privileged access to production sets or active shooting locations.'
Section 4(2)
Why it matters:This is likely a deliberate effort to ensure comprehensive coverage, recognizing that individuals with significant financial or executive power, even if not directly supervising, can have substantial influence and access on production sets. Its placement in definitions is standard but its breadth is critical to the bill's impact.
Case for: Proponents would argue that individuals with ownership or executive power, even if not directly supervising, can create environments where minors are vulnerable. Therefore, their access to sets necessitates the same safety vetting as direct employees to ensure a holistic approach to child protection.
Case against: Critics might contend that this definition extends the mandate beyond direct operational roles, potentially deterring investment or involvement from individuals who are primarily financial stakeholders but have minimal direct interaction with minors, adding unnecessary administrative complexity.
Estimated impact: Significantly expands the pool of individuals requiring background checks to include high-level executives, investors, and other non-production personnel who have privileged access to sets, not just on-set crew or actors.
The definition of 'entertainment industry entity' explicitly states it 'does not mean an entity that solely creates, produces, promotes, or distributes a work of journalism and this act shall not abridge or encumber freedom of the press or apply to the creation, production, promotion or distribution of any work released under a Creative Commons license.'
Section 4(3)(B)
Why it matters:This is likely a deliberate effort to narrow the bill's scope and avoid unintended consequences for independent creators, educational content, or non-commercial projects, as well as to protect journalistic freedoms. Its placement is standard for defining exclusions but makes it less prominent.
Case for: Proponents would argue this exemption protects independent creators, educational content, and non-commercial projects from undue regulatory burden, ensuring the bill focuses on commercial entertainment where minors are often employed, while also safeguarding freedom of the press and open-source creativity.
Case against: No strong case against this specific exemption, as it limits the bill's scope in a way generally seen as positive for creative freedom and preventing overreach. Some might argue it creates a potential loophole if commercial entities attempt to use Creative Commons licenses to evade compliance, but the 'solely' clause likely prevents this.
Estimated impact: Exempts a significant portion of online and independent creative content, as well as journalistic endeavors, from the bill's requirements, potentially fostering open-source creativity and protecting press freedom without the added regulatory burden.