Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Veterans Benefits Fraud topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Veterans bill to expand consumer enforcement against ‘claim‑shark’ practices laid over after tie vote and contested testimony
Summary
A bill (House File 1855) that would add Minnesota consumer‑protection tools and private remedies for veterans targeted by unaccredited, for‑profit claims preparers drew divided testimony. A committee roll call resulted in a 7–7 tie and the motion to refer failed; the bill was laid over for further work.
House File 1855, a proposal to strengthen civil remedies and penalties for predatory for‑profit businesses that assist veterans with VA benefit claims, stalled in the Judiciary Finance and CIPA Committee after sharply divided testimony and a tie vote.
Representative Greenman, the bill’s author, said the bill targets “claim sharks” who charge veterans for services the federal government provides for free and who make promises they cannot keep. The bill would allow private enforcement under Minnesota’s consumer‑protection statute for deceptive or unfair practices in veteran‑claims services and would carry criminal penalties for fraudulent conduct; supporters told the committee the measure fills enforcement gaps and protects vulnerable veterans.
Deputy Commissioner Ben Johnson of the Minnesota Department of Veterans Affairs said the department supports stronger protections to ensure legitimate, accredited assistance is used and to protect veterans. John Baker, executive director of the Minnesota Association of County Veterans Service Officers, said prior disclosure law (passed in 2017) had under‑enforced penalties and that moving this conduct under consumer‑protection law would give veterans a private right of action in addition to the Attorney General’s authority.
Several speakers opposed the bill as written. Benjamin Krause, a VA‑accredited attorney, and other veteran‑service attorneys warned that subdivision 4’s proposed penalty structure and private‑right language could sweep in federally accredited attorneys or create contradictory regulatory regimes; they urged a carve‑out or clearer exemptions for federal VA‑accredited practitioners. John Blumstrom and other private firms said the measure risks restricting a veteran’s ability to choose representation. Several lawmakers said they wanted further technical discussions with veterans’ stakeholders and attorneys before advancing the bill.
On a committee roll call, the motion to refer the bill to the Veterans and Military Affairs Division resulted in a 7‑7 tie and therefore did not prevail; committee members recorded differing positions and several requested additional drafting sessions. The bill is laid over for further work and stakeholder negotiations.
