Senate Bill 693 creates a new state law regulating paid services related to veterans’ benefits claims. It defines “veterans’ benefits matter” broadly to include preparing, presenting, prosecuting, advising on, consulting about, or assisting with claims for veterans’ benefits administered by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs or the North Carolina Department of Military and Veterans Affairs. The bill generally prohibits a person from charging for help with an initial disability claim, receiving referral fees for veterans’ benefits services, making guarantees about benefit outcomes, aggressively soliciting veterans for these services, accessing a claimant’s personal login credentials, or using a medical professional for a secondary exam if that professional is employed by the service provider.
The bill allows compensation only under a written agreement signed before services are provided. That agreement must include all fee terms, prohibit upfront fees, and limit contingency fees to no more than five times the amount of a one-month increase in benefits. It also requires a prominent disclosure stating that the business is not affiliated with VA or state veterans’ agencies, that free help may be available from public or nonprofit veterans’ organizations, and that other benefits may exist. The disclosure must be given both in writing and orally, with acknowledgment by the client, and retained for at least one year after the relationship ends. Violations are treated as unfair trade practices under North Carolina’s consumer protection law, and licensed North Carolina attorneys are exempt.
The bill’s impact is to add a new regulatory framework in Chapter 143B governing non-attorney veterans’ benefits advisors, consultants, and similar paid claim-assistance businesses. It would restrict how these businesses market their services, structure fees, and handle client information, while preserving the ability of attorneys licensed in North Carolina to provide such services outside these restrictions. It also creates a consumer-protection enforcement hook by making violations unfair trade practices under G.S. 75-1.1, which can expose violators to civil remedies and enforcement actions.
The general sentiment reflected in the available vote history is strongly favorable: the bill passed second reading in the Senate 45-0. No committee transcript excerpts were provided, so there is no recorded debate in the supplied materials, but the unanimous vote suggests broad support for the bill’s consumer-protection and veterans’ advocacy goals. The bill title and structure indicate an intent to improve access to legitimate help for veterans while limiting abusive or misleading paid services.
The main points of contention likely concern the scope of the restrictions on non-attorney veterans’ benefits services, especially the ban on charging for initial disability-claim assistance, the cap on contingency fees, and the limits on solicitation and referral arrangements. Supporters would likely view these provisions as necessary to protect veterans from predatory practices and misleading promises, while critics could argue they may limit private-market assistance or make it harder for some veterans to obtain paid help. The attorney exemption may also be a point of interest because it treats licensed lawyers differently from other paid representatives.
This bill would amend Chapter 143B of the North Carolina General Statutes by adding a new section regulating compensation for services connected to veterans’ benefits matters. It would impose fee, disclosure, advertising, solicitation, and client-information restrictions on non-attorney providers of veterans’ benefits assistance, and it would classify violations as unfair trade practices under G.S. 75-1.1. Licensed North Carolina attorneys are excluded from the new restrictions, and the act would take effect October 1, 2025.
The available voting record shows unanimous support in the Senate, with a 45-0 second reading vote on May 6, 2025. No committee transcript was provided, but the bill’s framing suggests a broadly favorable response centered on consumer protection for veterans and preventing deceptive or exploitative paid claims assistance. The lack of recorded opposition in the supplied materials indicates little visible controversy in the chamber vote.
The likely areas of contention are the bill’s limits on non-attorney veterans’ benefits representatives: the prohibition on charging for initial disability-claim help, the cap on contingency fees, the ban on referral fees, and the restrictions on solicitation and access to personal account credentials. Supporters would likely argue these measures protect veterans from misleading or predatory actors and ensure they understand free alternatives. Potential critics may argue the bill could reduce access to paid assistance or impose burdens on legitimate service providers, though licensed attorneys remain exempt.