Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Veterans Claims Ban topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Subcommittee tables competing bill that would ban unaccredited paid help for VA claims
Summary
A companion bill, HB 1,911, the Veterans Services Protection Act, was also tabled after witnesses and veterans organizations debated whether state action is needed alongside federal accreditation rules.
Delegate Delores Sewell introduced HB 1,911, the Veterans Services Protection Act, which would make it a violation of the Virginia Consumer Protection Act for unaccredited individuals to charge for preparing, presenting, processing, advising, consulting, or assisting on veterans’ benefit matters before federal or state veteran agencies.
Sewell framed the bill as targeting “claim sharks” who charge large percentages of veterans’ benefits or promise guaranteed outcomes they cannot deliver. The bill carves out licensed attorneys and noted work with the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Joint Leadership Council of Virginia, veteran service organizations and Virginia trial attorneys in drafting the legislation. Sewell also referenced the bipartisan federal “Guard Act” (described as an unaccredited representative protection act) and prior attorney general support.
Testimony in favor included Doug Hoffman of the Virginia VFW, who said millions are taken from veterans by bad actors, and VFW quartermaster Joanne Smith who noted the Commonwealth’s existing network of 84 service officers who provide no-cost claims assistance. Supporters argued the bill would protect veterans from losing earned benefits to unaccredited providers.
Industry witnesses again objected to a wholesale prohibition. Representatives from private companies—who described themselves as veteran-run—said many veterans seek paid assistance after free channels did not succeed, that firms are complying with federal law, and that some seek federal accreditation changes.
Delegate Sewell moved the bill through the subcommittee process but the committee later voted to table HB 1,911 by a unanimous 6–0 vote, with members indicating more work and stakeholder talks were desirable.
Why it matters: The bill would make state-level consumer-protection enforcement available against paid providers who assist veterans, potentially reducing instances of fee-taking but raising questions about overlap with federal rules and whether state penalties would be duplicative.
Action: HB 1,911 was tabled by a 6–0 vote; stakeholders were urged to continue negotiations.
