Lawmakers Weigh Bill to Criminalize Predatory Unaccredited VA Claims Agents; Veterans Groups Spar Over Access and Fees

At a February hearing, the Joint Committee on Veterans and Federal Affairs took testimony on H.3840, which would make it a crime in Massachusetts for unaccredited actors to prepare VA claims or to act as paid claims preparers and would give state prosecutors tools to pursue predatory vendors.

Christopher Deary, a 13‑year veteran service officer (VSO) and accredited VA claims agent from the town of Kingsborough, urged passage: he said unaccredited providers charge upfront or contingency fees, sometimes thousands of dollars, to prepare claims that VSOs provide for free. Deary said the bill would give the Attorney General and local prosecutors authority to fine predatory actors and return funds to veterans’ programs.

Opponents included John Blumstrom of Veterans Party and Claim Consulting and representatives of a veterans‑consulting firm, who argued the bill as written would criminalize lawful consulting and could violate free‑speech protections. Blumstrom testified: "HB 38 40, while well intentioned, is misinformed," and said his firm explicitly discloses that free accredited services exist and that it does not act as an accredited agent. He said consulting firms help veterans who have tried free options and that federal court rulings raise constitutional concerns about state bans on paid consulting.

The Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) testified strongly against fee‑based representation and in favor of ensuring free accredited services are available and known to veterans. VFW witnesses emphasized that their organization provides free accredited service officers statewide and reported that VFW power‑of‑attorney filings brought $112 million in benefits into Massachusetts in the last 12 months. The VFW urged stronger outreach about free services and enforcement against so‑called “claim sharks.”

Members questioned the practical effect of state enforcement alongside federal VA accreditation rules and the scope of the HERO Act consumer safeguards enacted last year. Witnesses cited ongoing litigation in other states: New Jersey and Maine had passed similar laws and were facing legal challenges. Blumstrom pointed to a Third Circuit appellate decision addressing similar restrictions, and legal risk was a recurring theme.

The committee received both written and oral testimony representing divergent stakeholder views. Lawmakers said they will review written comments and monitor federal court decisions and the operational effects of last year’s HERO Act before deciding next steps.