relative to third-party veterans' claims assistance and protection.
SB 66, titled the Safeguarding American Veteran Empowerment (SAVE) Act, creates a new chapter in New Hampshire law regulating third-party businesses and individuals that advise, assist, or consult on veterans’ benefits claims. The bill prohibits paying someone for referring a veteran to a benefits advisor, requires a written agreement before any paid services are provided, bars upfront or nonrefundable fees, and limits compensation to contingency-based arrangements tied to increased benefits. It also prohibits guarantees of success or specific benefit outcomes and requires a prominent disclosure stating that the business is not affiliated with the VA or state veterans’ agencies and that free help may be available from public or accredited veterans’ organizations.
The bill also adds consumer-protection and privacy rules for fee-based veterans’ claims assistance businesses. These businesses may not use international call centers or data centers to process veterans’ personal information, may not use a veteran’s login credentials to access medical, financial, or government benefits accounts, and must conduct background checks on individuals who access veterans’ medical or financial information. Violations are treated as unfair, false, misleading, or deceptive trade practices under the state consumer protection law, enforceable by the attorney general, with civil penalties and restitution to harmed veterans. The bill expressly does not alter the rules governing accredited VA agents, attorneys, or other federally regulated representatives, and it would take effect January 1, 2026.
SB 66 would add a new chapter to the New Hampshire Revised Statutes Annotated governing third-party veterans’ claims assistance, while also tying violations to the state’s consumer protection statute, RSA 358-A. It would create new legal duties for paid veterans’ benefits advisors and related businesses, including contract, disclosure, compensation, privacy, and background-check requirements, and would authorize enforcement through civil actions by the attorney general. The bill could also affect judicial and correctional system workloads because violations are penalized under existing trade-practice enforcement mechanisms, though the fiscal note estimates no direct revenue impact and indeterminable expenditures.
The bill appears to have a protective, consumer-focused purpose and is framed as safeguarding veterans from misleading or predatory claims assistance practices. The available context shows sponsorship from multiple senators and representatives and referral to the Commerce Committee, but no recorded committee transcript or vote history is provided. Based on the text alone, the overall sentiment is likely supportive of stronger regulation and transparency for veterans seeking benefits help.
The main policy tension is between consumer protection for veterans and the regulatory burden placed on private claims-assistance businesses. Supporters would likely emphasize preventing referral kickbacks, deceptive promises, hidden fees, and misuse of veterans’ personal data, while critics may object to the contingency-fee limits, the ban on upfront fees, the disclosure and recordkeeping requirements, and the operational restrictions on call centers and access to personal information. The bill also draws a line between unaccredited third-party services and federally accredited VA representatives, which may be important to stakeholders concerned about preserving existing professional practices.