Who May Charge a Veteran for Claims Help? The Law, the Two Bills, and the Court War
Here is the fact that surprises almost everyone, including some people who work in this field: charging a veteran for help with an initial VA claim is already illegal — for everyone. Not gray-area. Not "depends on the state." Illegal under federal law, today. So why does a billion-dollar "claims consulting" industry do it anyway, openly, with billboards? The answer is one sentence in a 2006 law — and the fight to fix it now runs through two opposing bills in Congress, a patchwork of state laws, and two federal appeals courts pulling in opposite directions.
The law as it stands
Federal law recognizes exactly three kinds of people who may help a veteran with a VA claim: VSO representatives (your county, state, DAV, Legion, VFW officers — who may never charge a veteran anything), and accredited claims agents and attorneys — who may charge only after VA issues an initial decision, meaning appeals and supplemental claims, at fees VA can review for reasonableness. Nobody — accredited or not — may lawfully charge a veteran for preparing or filing that first claim. VA reads the representation rules broadly: advising, gathering evidence, and filling out forms all count.
2006: the year the law lost its teeth
Until 2006, charging prohibited fees was a crime. Then the Veterans Benefits, Health Care, and Information Technology Act of 2006 repealed the criminal penalty — and Congress never replaced it. The rule survived; the consequence didn't. Against an accredited representative who overcharges, VA can revoke accreditation. Against an unaccredited company, VA can write a letter. Per a 2025 GAO report, VA sent 35 cease-and-desist letters in 2024; reporting by The War Horse counts roughly 40 companies warned in total — and found most still operating. That enforcement vacuum is not a loophole the claims-consulting industry found. It is the ground the industry is built on.
Two bills, opposite philosophies
| GUARD VA Benefits Act (H.R. 1732) | PLUS for Veterans Act | |
|---|---|---|
| Core move | Restore criminal fines for charging unauthorized fees | Legalize the fees first, then restore penalties for breaking the new rules |
| Who may charge for initial claims | Nobody (unchanged — just enforced) | Accredited agents and attorneys, capped at the lesser of $12,500 or 5× the monthly benefit increase |
| Philosophy | The free system works; punish those who prey on it | Demand for paid help is real; regulate it instead of banning it |
| Backers | 136+ House cosponsors, a bipartisan coalition of 44 state attorneys general, and the major veterans service organizations | The claims-consulting industry |
Both bills restore criminal penalties — read that again, because it means even the consulting industry concedes the current vacuum is indefensible. The disagreement is what the penalties should protect: the free system, or a priced one. The two camps have blocked each other in Congress for years; H.R. 1732 had a House subcommittee hearing in March 2026 and has not moved since.
So the fight moved to the states — and then to the courts
Roughly nine states have banned unaccredited charging (California joined in February 2026, with the American Legion and VFW backing the bill); about six went the other way and legalized fee-capped "claims consulting." Then the courts started shooting in both directions:
Louisiana (February 2026): a federal court struck down the state's pro-consultant law — the fee caps were preempted by federal law, and its mandatory disclosures violated the First Amendment. Brought, notably, by a veterans group. On appeal to the Fifth Circuit.
New Jersey: in Veterans Guardian v. Platkin, the Third Circuit voiced "serious" constitutional doubts about the state's fee ban, reasoning that restricting paid claims help may burden protected speech — logic that, taken far enough, threatens the federal scheme itself.
Follow that: federal preemption is killing the laws that allow charging, while the First Amendment menaces the laws that forbid it. Two appeals courts, two live cases, opposite trajectories. Unless Congress settles it first, this argument is walking toward the Supreme Court.
What it means for the people who do the free work
Every branch of this decision tree ends the same way for service officers: busier. If the GUARD Act passes, the paid channel shrinks overnight and its clients walk into the free one — the PACT Act taught everyone what a demand wave does to offices already at capacity. If the PLUS Act passes, the market legitimizes and veterans comparison-shop — and the free channel's answer to "why pay $12,500?" has to be speed and quality, not just price. And if the stalemate holds, the confusion itself drives traffic: every veteran burned or spooked by a consultant lands at a post, a county office, or a chapter asking someone they trust.
Whatever Congress decides about who may charge, it has already been decided who will carry the load: the officers who charge nothing. The only open question is what tools they'll have when the wave arrives.
Where we stand
Guidon's position costs nothing to guess: the Pledge opens with "no veteran will ever pay us anything," and we build exclusively for the free channel — the service officers this entire fight is ultimately about. We don't write laws. We make the lawful, free system fast enough that paying $12,500 for what a VSO does better at no charge stops making sense to anyone. That's our contribution to the debate.
The capacity math behind the wave Vetting any vendor — including us