An Act Establishing Protections For Veterans From Benefits Claim Sharks.
Summary
HB 6874 creates a new state law aimed at protecting veterans from so-called “benefits claim sharks” — paid advisers or businesses that assist with veterans’ benefits claims. The bill defines key terms such as “veterans benefit” and “veterans benefits matter,” and then places conditions on anyone seeking compensation for advising or assisting with those matters. Before providing services, the person must enter into a written agreement that meets federal VA rules, provide a plain-language summary of the agreement, and comply with federal requirements governing fee arrangements.
The bill also restricts when and how compensation may be collected. A paid adviser may not receive compensation until the veteran obtains a favorable resolution of the claim, and may not collect payment after an adverse initial decision until a notice of disagreement is filed on the veteran’s behalf. It further prohibits guarantees of specific outcomes or benefit amounts and bars unreasonable fees, using federal VA regulations as the standard for determining reasonableness. These rules are intended to curb misleading or exploitative practices in the veterans’ benefits assistance market.
Impact
The bill adds a new section to the General Statutes effective October 1, 2025, and makes violations of its fee, disclosure, and advertising rules an unfair or deceptive trade practice under Connecticut’s consumer protection law, section 42-110b. That means the Attorney General may investigate and enforce violations on behalf of the state. The measure would directly affect paid veterans benefits advisers, claims consultants, and similar businesses, while reinforcing the availability of free assistance from the Connecticut Department of Veterans Affairs, municipal veterans service agencies, and federally chartered veterans service organizations.
Sentiment
The available voting history suggests generally favorable committee sentiment, with the VA Joint Favorable Substitute reported at 13 yeas and 6 nays. The bill’s purpose is framed as consumer protection for veterans, and the substitute language indicates an effort to align the proposal with federal VA rules. Overall, the measure appears to have support as a safeguard against abusive claims practices, though not unanimous support.
Contention
The main points of contention are likely the regulation of paid veterans claims assistance and the limits placed on when fees can be charged. Critics may view the bill as burdensome to legitimate private advisers or as overlapping with federal regulation, while supporters likely see it as necessary to prevent misleading promises, excessive fees, and exploitation of veterans seeking benefits. The deletion of the phrase “Except as permitted under federal law” in the substitute bill suggests attention to federal conformity, indicating that the scope of permissible paid assistance was a legal issue during drafting.