The world of child YouTube stardom, often perceived as glamorous and lucrative, is facing a harsh spotlight as a trial begins involving Tiffany Smith, the mother of 15-year-old YouTube sensation Piper Rockelle. Smith is accused of emotional, physical, and sexual abuse by eleven former teen content creators who were once part of Rockelle’s channel. This legal battle offers a rare look into the largely unregulated and potentially exploitative nature of online child entertainment.
The lawsuit, filed in January 2022, alleges that Smith intentionally inflicted emotional distress on these young creators while she held a position of control during the production of content for Piper Rockelle’s popular YouTube channel. The plaintiffs claim they suffered physical and emotional harm due to “harassment, molestation, and abuse.” Beyond the abuse allegations, some plaintiffs also state they were not compensated for the use of their images in promoting Rockelle’s content, and none of them received payment for their work and appearances, despite not being explicitly promised any.
These allegations have sparked widespread concern and offer a disturbing glimpse into the “Wild West” environment of child YouTube stardom. YouTube, as a platform, maintains it is not responsible for the off-screen conduct of its creators. The legal framework surrounding child content creation on social media is surprisingly thin, leaving young performers vulnerable. Each of the eleven plaintiffs is seeking approximately $2 million in damages, totaling at least $22 million, from Smith and her boyfriend, Hunter Hill, who is identified in the complaint as the director and editor of Rockelle’s YouTube channel.
The “Piper Squad” and Allegations of Exploitation
The plaintiffs were all once members of Piper Rockelle’s “Piper Squad,” a group featured prominently on her YouTube channel, which boasts over 10 million subscribers. The “Squad” is composed of children and young teenagers, whose relationships and staged antics are broadcast to a massive audience. Despite their young ages, these children allege they were pressured to stage romantic “crushes” on each other, designed to mislead and entertain young viewers.
According to the lawsuit and testimonies from mothers of former “Squad” members, these manufactured romantic storylines and the dynamics within the “Squad” led to serious issues, including online bullying and harassment directed at their children. Both the legal complaint and the mothers assert that Smith’s actions have left their children with lasting trauma.
Ashley Anne-Rock Smith, whose two daughters, who are also Rockelle’s cousins and plaintiffs in the case, appeared in 94 videos on the channel, expressed her distress: “I just want peace back with my kids… I want all predators who hurt young kids to be brought to justice. I also hope we move the needle on these platforms that are allowing this.”
YouTube has not yet issued a public statement regarding the lawsuit.
Countersuit and Escalating Legal Battles
In a move that further complicated the situation, Tiffany Smith filed a $30 million countersuit in July, accusing the plaintiffs’ mothers of conspiring to extort money through false sexual abuse allegations. However, Smith voluntarily dropped this countersuit before the mothers had a chance to respond. Matthew Sarelson, an attorney representing the plaintiffs, dismissed Smith’s lawsuit as “baseless.”
An attorney for Smith has not commented on the ongoing case. However, in a December interview with the Los Angeles Times, Smith stated that she did not consider herself the plaintiffs’ employer during the time the videos were filmed. She also mentioned that she has since obtained a permit to work with minors.
Disturbing Details of Abuse Allegations
The 147-page complaint paints a disturbing picture of Tiffany Smith’s alleged behavior. Plaintiffs describe her as a “mean-spirited control freak” who made inappropriate comments about children’s genitalia, yelled obscene and sexually explicit remarks, encouraged them to be “sexy” and “sexually aggressive” in videos, and inappropriately touched them on their legs, thighs, and buttocks. One plaintiff even alleged that Smith told her she was sending Rochelle’s underwear to a man who liked to “sniff” it.
Steevy Areeco, the mother of another plaintiff, explained the delayed understanding of the alleged abuse: “As children, they don’t understand it, sometimes it goes over their heads. But now they’re older and they’re starting to understand the trauma that was caused, the things that were said to them, these fake crushes.”
Areeco and other parents and plaintiffs had experience in traditional media before joining the “Squad.” Attorney Sarelson pointed out the legal loophole: regulations protecting child actors on traditional TV and movie sets do not extend to non-traditional filming environments like YouTube. Areeco emphasized that the “Squad” was not acting, as Smith demanded “real reactions” and “force[d] them to live these adult situations they shouldn’t have been put in.”
Areeco advocates for stronger protections for child influencers: “We all love YouTube and it’s a great place, but when somebody is using it as a business and pulling other children in, those people should have to uphold a certain standard. We want there to be protections for the children.”
YouTube’s Response and Financial Repercussions
In February 2022, following an inquiry from Insider regarding the lawsuit, YouTube demonetized Piper Rockelle’s channel. This means the channel no longer earns revenue from advertisements. However, Rockelle still generates income through merchandise sales and live performances on tour.
Furthermore, nine of the plaintiffs allege that Smith and Hill engaged in “sabotage” of their YouTube channels after they left the “Squad.” They claim Smith and Hill falsely flagged their content as inappropriate and embedded their videos on pornographic websites, leading to YouTube “restricting” their content. These nine plaintiffs are seeking at least $2 million in damages for lost earnings from YouTube.
Sarelson poignantly stated, “They lost their childhood… Several of my clients have removed themselves from the world of social media because they had this bad experience.”
The Unregulated Landscape of Child Social Media Stardom
Even before the lawsuit, legal conflicts between Smith and the parents of former “Squad” members were ongoing, and Piper Rockelle’s name had surfaced in tabloid headlines.
In September 2021, YouTube removed three of Rockelle’s thumbnail images for violating its Child Safety Policy after singer P!nk publicly criticized Smith for “exploiting” her daughter. At the time, both Rockelle and Smith defended the photos, with Smith stating her intention to “protect” and support her daughter.
In April 2020, Smith sued another “Squad” parent (not involved in the current lawsuit) for defamation. The case was settled, but during the proceedings, content creator Raegan Fingles submitted a declaration accusing Smith of providing him with alcohol and aggressively kissing him on livestream when he was 17. Fingles reported that the FBI interviewed him about this incident in June. Smith acknowledged the kiss but downplayed it as “greatly blown out of proportion.”
The FBI has not commented on the matter.
Calls for Legal Reform and Industry Accountability
As the lawsuit against Smith proceeds, the popularity of child influencer content on YouTube continues to grow. Catalina Goanta, an expert in law and technology at Utrecht University, highlights the industry’s boom due to diverse monetization methods, yet emphasizes the lack of protection for child stars.
Goanta draws a parallel to traditional child entertainment: “You can have the production of Disney channel, starring your child, in your home… We have rules for child labor, especially entertainment labor. Now we need to expand that to be applicable to the activities of children in the intimacy of their home.”
Plaintiffs’ attorneys aim to secure compensation for their clients and address the trauma they endured. They also hope this case will prompt broader changes in the child influencer industry. Advocates are calling for California to re-examine legislation like the Coogan Law, which protects child performers’ earnings in traditional entertainment. Experts and plaintiffs argue for its expansion to include social media content creators, regardless of contracts or union membership.
The current legal framework, as Sarelson points out, fails to protect his clients because they were not paid for their work. “It’s a highly unregulated, Wild West environment. There’s potential for misconduct and abuse throughout the industry,” he stated. “You would hope the California Legislature would investigate and take some action to make some changes, some modifications to the law.”
Jennifer Bryant, mother of one of the plaintiffs, succinctly expressed the desired outcome: “My goal is that Tiffany Smith never works with a child again.” This case underscores the urgent need for greater oversight and regulation within the rapidly evolving world of child social media influencers to safeguard vulnerable young performers.
