An act to amend Section 1770 of the Civil Code, and to amend Section 401 of the Military and Veterans Code, relating to unfair business practices.
SB 694 expands California’s consumer protection and veterans-protection laws to target deceptive or exploitative practices involving veterans benefits and service members’ credentials. In the Civil Code, it broadens the Consumers Legal Remedies Act definition of “public social services” so it expressly covers additional veterans benefits administered by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and the California Department of Veterans Affairs. It also expands the definition of an “unreasonable fee” to include charges for help with federal veterans benefits that exceed what an accredited VA attorney or claims agent could charge, and it requires certain veterans-benefits events and promotions to include specific disclosures warning consumers about authorization and sponsorship.
The bill also amends the Military and Veterans Code to prohibit businesses from requiring current or former service members to log in to, share credentials for, or use another person’s credentials for Department of Defense, VA, or Homeland Security computer systems in connection with a transaction. It further bars charging or attempting to charge fees for preparing, presenting, or prosecuting VA benefits claims, except where federal law allows, and makes contracts or transactions entered into in violation of these provisions void. Violations are made a misdemeanor, and the bill also preserves existing remedies by making violators liable for actual damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs.
SB 694’s practical effect is to strengthen state-level oversight of veterans-benefits assistance, curb unlicensed or excessive-fee claims assistance, and deter businesses from pressuring service members into revealing sensitive login credentials. It also adds new disclosure and pricing requirements that affect marketers, seminar promoters, financial-product sellers, and others advertising services related to veterans benefits, while leaving licensed California attorneys subject to their existing professional rules and fee-arbitration procedures. The bill was chaptered into law as Chapter 1, Statutes of 2026.
The overall sentiment reflected in the voting history was strongly favorable and largely noncontroversial. Committee and floor votes were overwhelmingly in support, including several unanimous committee votes and a 68-0 Senate third reading vote, with only one later vote showing some opposition (25-6). The absence of committee transcript material limits insight into detailed debate, but the recorded history suggests broad bipartisan agreement on the need to protect veterans and service members from deceptive practices.
The main points of contention appear to be the scope of the new restrictions and enforcement mechanisms. Potential concerns include the misdemeanor penalty, the voiding of contracts, and the breadth of the ban on fees for VA claims assistance, which could affect businesses or consultants operating near the line between permitted and prohibited veterans-benefits services. Another possible issue is the bill’s reach into credential-sharing and computer-system access, which may raise compliance questions for businesses interacting with service members or veterans in transactional settings.
SB 694 amends Civil Code section 1770 and Military and Veterans Code section 401, expanding California’s unfair business practices and veterans-protection statutes. It adds veterans-benefits-related conduct to the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, broadens the definition of unreasonable fees for veterans claims assistance, prohibits certain credential-sharing and VA-claims-fee practices, voids contracts made in violation of the new rules, and makes violations misdemeanors. It also creates a state-mandated local program but declares no reimbursement is required.
The bill appears to have enjoyed strong support throughout the legislative process, with multiple unanimous committee votes and a unanimous Senate third reading vote. The final recorded vote before chaptering showed some dissent, but the overall pattern indicates broad agreement that the bill addresses deceptive practices targeting service members and veterans. No committee transcript was provided, so the record does not show extensive public controversy or detailed opposition arguments.
The likely areas of contention are the bill’s enforcement-heavy approach and the breadth of its restrictions. Businesses that assist with veterans benefits may object to the fee cap tied to VA-accredited representatives, while others may be concerned about the misdemeanor penalty and voiding of contracts for violations. The credential-access provisions could also raise compliance and privacy questions for entities that interact with current or former service members, especially where login access or identity verification is part of a transaction.