Veterans Benefits Matters - Claim Servicers - Requirements
HB 977 creates new requirements for non-accredited persons who charge for services related to veterans benefits matters in Maryland. Before providing services, such a person would have to enter into a written fee agreement signed by both parties, and the agreement must comply with federal VA rules governing paid claims assistance. The bill also requires a prominent written notice in the agreement, plus an oral disclosure and written acknowledgment, stating that veterans benefits services are available at no cost from the Maryland Department of Veterans and Military Families and federally accredited veterans service organizations.
The bill further provides that if a client dies before the claim is processed, the service provider may not charge or collect any fee or debt connected to that service. Violations of the bill’s core requirements would be treated as unfair, abusive, or deceptive trade practices under Maryland’s commercial law, subjecting violators to the state’s consumer protection enforcement framework. For disclosure violations specifically, the bill authorizes civil penalties of up to $10,000 per violation and a one-year ban on offering veterans benefits matter services in Maryland, with penalties collected by the Attorney General deposited into the Maryland Veterans Trust Fund.
HB 977 would amend Maryland’s Commercial Law Article to add a new unfair trade practice category for violations of the veterans benefits matter fee-agreement requirements, and it would replace the existing State Government Article section on veterans benefits services disclosures with a new, more detailed regulatory scheme for paid claim servicers. It would impose new contracting, disclosure, and notice obligations on non-VA-accredited individuals or businesses that assist with veterans benefits claims or appeals, while also limiting fee collection in the event of a client’s death before processing. The bill would shift enforcement to the Attorney General and District Court, and it would direct civil and administrative penalties to the Maryland Veterans Trust Fund.
The bill appears generally protective of veterans and supportive of access to free accredited assistance, with a clear consumer-protection orientation. Its structure suggests an effort to curb misleading or predatory paid claims assistance by requiring conspicuous disclosures and by tying violations to unfair trade practice enforcement. No vote record or committee testimony is provided, so there is no documented opposition or support beyond the bill’s text and posture at hearing.
The main point of contention is likely the regulation of paid veterans benefits claim servicers, especially non-accredited providers that charge fees for assistance that may also be available free through government or accredited organizations. The bill’s mandatory written and oral disclosures, the required notice language, the prohibition on collecting fees if the claimant dies before processing, and the steep penalties and service ban for disclosure violations could be viewed as burdensome by affected businesses. Supporters would likely emphasize consumer protection, informed consent, and preventing veterans from paying for services they can obtain at no cost.