Assembly committee advances Archuleta bill to curb unaccredited firms charging veterans for VA claims

The California Assembly Committee on Military and Veteran Affairs voted to advance Senate Bill 694, sending the measure to the Judiciary Committee after a roll-call vote that recorded six ayes and several members not voting. The bill, presented by Senator Archuleta, would bar unaccredited claim representatives from soliciting or charging fees to assist veterans with Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) benefits claims and would reinforce existing fee caps and consumer protections.

Senator Archuleta, the bill’s author, told the committee, “California veterans are too often targeted by unaccredited claim representatives offering to assist these veterans with their claims” and said the measure “requires VA accreditation in the field of veterans claims representatives.” He described instances in which companies charge fees he characterized as excessive and said the bill “does not prevent individuals from working in the profession of assisting veterans with VA benefits claims so long as they obtain a VA accreditation.”

The bill’s supporters and opponents framed the issue around consumer protection, access and choice. David West, veteran service officer for Nevada County and president of the California Association of County Veterans Service Officers, said he strongly supported SB 694 and told the committee the state’s county veteran service officer network provides accredited, free claims assistance and broader wraparound services. West told the panel that predatory companies “drain veterans’ resources” and referenced a 2023 Federal Trade Commission figure cited by the bill’s author that unaccredited firms charged roughly $477,000,000 to veterans and military families.

Josh Baker, president of the California Enlisted Association of the California National Guard, described veterans’ experiences with for‑profit companies and said many veterans find those firms through online searches; he recounted veterans paying thousands of dollars with no guaranteed improvement in their rating. Several veterans service organizations — including the American Legion, AMVETS, the VFW of California and others represented at the hearing — spoke in support of the bill.

Opponents and representatives of for‑profit firms argued the bill as written would remove choice for some veterans and could sweep in companies that are trying to operate within legal limits. William Taylor, co‑founder and CEO of Veterans Guardian, said his company employs mostly veterans and that his firm focuses on fully developed claims and “is leveraging technology, AI, expertise, and training” to shorten decision times. Taylor said his company and similar firms are working toward accreditation at the federal level and argued for a regulatory path that would allow contingent‑fee firms to operate with oversight.

John Henry Parker, a veteran’s advocate who testified in opposition unless the bill is amended, said he supports barring predatory up‑front fees but urged preservation of “transparent, performance based, contingency based companies” that claim to deliver results and that could be held to accountability standards if a pathway for accreditation exists.

Committee members asked about the current accreditation process, capacity for accredited county veteran service officers, the legal status of unaccredited firms under federal law and the practical impact on veterans who rely on alternative providers. Senator Archuleta and committee supporters said federal law changed in 2006 in ways that removed some penalties and created a gap state action could address; proponents argued SB 694 would close a state‑level accountability gap and protect veterans while federal and VA processes for accreditation are pursued. Opponents pointed to litigation in federal courts challenging similar state restrictions and argued the constitutional and legal questions are not fully settled.

Votes at a glance: The committee approved SB 694 on a motion to “do pass and refer to the Committee on Judiciary.” The roll call for SB 694 recorded the following responses: “Shavo” (aye), “Gonzales” (aye), “Avila Farias” (aye), “Carrillo” (aye), “Davies” (aye); Michelle Rodriguez and Sharp Collins were recorded as not voting; Valencia was listed on the roll. The committee also moved four bills on the consent calendar (AJR 15 by Assemblymember Alanis; SB 56 by Senator Celiarto; SB 296 by Senator Archuleta; SB 855 by the Senate Committee on Military and Veterans Affairs) with committee motions to adopt or “do pass” and referrals to the indicated committees.

The committee discussion included multiple requests from members to work on amendments or carry companion proposals to preserve legitimate providers while tightening oversight. Several witnesses urged increased funding and staffing for county veteran service officers; Senators and committee members said state funds recently expanded county VSOs and that additional capacity is a parallel policy priority.

SB 694 now goes to the Assembly Judiciary Committee for further consideration. Supporters said they expect to continue coordinating with federal authorities and veterans service organizations to refine accreditation and oversight options; opponents signaled litigation and federal‑level action as alternative paths.