Prohibit as a deceptive trade practice certain conduct relating to assistance or referrals in veterans benefits matters
Summary
LB693 would amend Nebraska’s Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act to add a new category of prohibited conduct involving veterans benefits matters. The bill makes it a deceptive trade practice for a person to receive compensation for preparing, presenting, prosecuting, advising, consulting, or assisting an individual with a veterans benefits matter before the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, the U.S. Department of Defense, or the Nebraska Department of Veterans Affairs, except where compensation is otherwise permitted by state or federal law. It also prohibits receiving compensation for referring an individual to another person for those services, again subject to existing legal exceptions.
The bill defines key terms such as “veterans benefits matter” and “compensation,” and includes exceptions for lawful attorney fee divisions and county veterans service officers. It also clarifies that a complainant need not prove competition between the parties to bring an action under the deceptive trade practices law, and that the new section does not displace other common-law or statutory unfair trade practice remedies. The bill would repeal the original section it amends and replace it with the revised version.
Impact
LB693 would expand Nebraska’s consumer protection and deceptive trade practices law by creating a specific prohibition aimed at paid assistance and referral practices in veterans benefits claims and related matters. It would affect businesses, consultants, and other individuals who market or provide veterans benefits assistance, while preserving lawful representation and fee arrangements allowed under state or federal law. The bill would also give enforcement authorities and private complainants a clearer statutory basis for challenging improper compensation-based veterans benefits solicitation or referral practices.
Sentiment
The available record shows no committee transcript, recorded vote, or floor debate, so there is no direct evidence of support or opposition from discussion. The bill’s subject matter suggests a consumer-protection and veterans-services rationale, and its structure indicates an intent to curb misleading or exploitative practices involving veterans seeking benefits. However, because the measure was indefinitely postponed, it did not advance to enactment in the available legislative history.
Contention
The main point of potential contention is the scope of the compensation ban and how it interacts with lawful legal services, fee-sharing, and other permitted arrangements under state and federal law. Another likely issue is whether the bill could affect private veterans benefits advisors, referral businesses, or other intermediaries that operate near the line between permitted assistance and prohibited paid solicitation. The bill attempts to address these concerns by carving out exceptions for attorneys, county veterans service officers, and conduct otherwise authorized by law.