Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Veterans Claims Protections topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee backs bill to bar for‑profit firms from charging veterans for initial VA claim assistance
Summary
The committee voted SB 694 to Appropriations after testimony from dozens of veterans, VSOs and some private firms. Supporters said the bill prevents predatory companies from taking large fees from veterans' retroactive benefits; opponents, including some veteran‑run firms, said regulation and accreditation are preferable to a broad ban.
Sen. Archuleta and Assemblymember Schiavo presented Senate Bill 694 to the Assembly Judiciary Committee and secured a referral to Appropriations after a lengthy hearing dominated by veterans' testimony.
SB 694 would align state law with federal rules and tighten penalties for unaccredited actors who prepare, present or prosecute VA benefit claims for a fee. Supporters described a for‑profit industry that targets veterans with fee arrangements that can reach thousands of dollars or a percentage of retroactive benefits; witnesses cited Federal Trade Commission estimates and VA consumer‑protection warnings. Jim Zenner, legislative director of the California Association of County Veterans Service Officers (CACVSO), said county veteran service officers (CVSOs) and veterans service organizations provide free, accredited assistance and that the state should not allow unaccredited actors to charge for the same services.
Multiple veterans gave personal accounts of hiring private consultants who charged substantial fees and, in some cases, provided poor communication or results. Michael Brown, a Vietnam‑era veteran, said he encountered a Florida‑based firm and ultimately used his county CVSO instead; he described the free public service as helpful. State and national veterans organizations — including the American Legion, Veterans of Foreign Wars, Disabled American Veterans and many county veteran service officers — testified in strong support.
Opposition testimony came from a small number of private firms and individual veterans who run fee‑based consulting businesses. They argued some veterans want the option to pay for a faster or different service and said their operations employ veterans and families; several urged a path to state registration or federal accreditation. One firm said it achieves high success rates and rapid turnaround and asked for a regulatory framework with caps, consumer‑protection disclosures and a state licensing option while federal accreditation rules are updated.
Committee members acknowledged two goals: protecting veterans from predatory actors and preserving access for veterans who choose paid options. Several members urged a compromise that would impose clear consumer protections — including fee transparency, contingent‑fee limits, disclosure that free services exist, a private right of action and state registration — while the federal accreditation process evolves. Senator Archuleta said he welcomes amendments that create reasonable state safeguards but emphasized that the present patchwork allows firms to charge veterans in ways that the sponsors and many veterans call abusive.
After extended questioning and public testimony, the committee voted to refer SB 694 to the Appropriations Committee. Committee members and witnesses said they will continue negotiations on amendments to add explicit consumer protections and a path for responsible firms to operate under oversight.
