HB652 would create a new part in Hawaii Revised Statutes chapter 363 to regulate paid advice and assistance related to veterans benefits matters. The bill generally prohibits any person from receiving compensation for preparing, presenting, prosecuting, advising, consulting, or assisting with a veterans benefits claim, and also prohibits compensation for referring someone to another person for those services, except where allowed under federal law.
The measure also bars anyone from guaranteeing that a claimant will receive specific veterans benefits or a particular level, percentage, or amount of benefits, and it prohibits excessive or unreasonable fees. Any paid arrangement for veterans benefits services would have to be set out in a written agreement signed by both parties and consistent with federal rules in 38 C.F.R. section 14.636. The bill defines key terms such as “compensation,” “person,” and “veterans benefits matter,” and it exempts accredited representatives, accredited agents or attorneys, and Department of Defense employees acting in their official capacity.
Impact
HB652 would add new state-level consumer protection rules governing paid veterans benefits services and would make violations an unfair or deceptive act or practice under Hawaii’s unfair trade practices laws, specifically chapter 481A and section 480-2. It would also amend chapter 363 by creating a veterans benefits part and adding statutory definitions that broaden the scope of covered conduct and entities. The practical effect would be to restrict unaccredited or non-exempt individuals and businesses from charging for veterans claims assistance in Hawaii unless their conduct is permitted under federal law and compliant with the bill’s disclosure and fee requirements.
Sentiment
The available context suggests the bill was introduced as a consumer-protection measure aimed at shielding veterans and their families from misleading or exploitative paid claims assistance. There is no recorded committee testimony or vote detail in the provided materials, but the bill’s referral status indicates it was considered by the Public Safety committee and then recommended to be deferred. That procedural outcome suggests the measure did not advance at that stage, though the text itself reflects a policy goal of tighter regulation rather than expansion of benefits.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely the bill’s broad restriction on compensation for veterans benefits advice and assistance, which could affect private claims consultants, referral arrangements, and fee-based service providers. The bill attempts to avoid conflict with federal law by incorporating federal accreditation and fee rules, but the scope of the prohibition and the definition of “veterans benefits matter” could still raise concerns about overbreadth, enforcement, and impacts on non-attorney advocates. Supporters would likely emphasize fraud prevention and consumer protection for veterans, while opponents may focus on limits to paid assistance and the risk of discouraging legitimate help outside the exempt categories.