Veterans seeking help filing disability claims are protected by clear federal rules: Those who assist with preparation and presentation of claims must be accredited by the VA, and no one – not even accredited attorneys or claims agents – may charge a veteran to help with an initial claim.

But rules without an enforcement mechanism have left veterans vulnerable to predatory actors.

A recent federal court decision offers a troubling illustration of this enforcement gap. Veterans Guardian VA Claim Consulting openly acknowledges it is not VA-accredited, but it has prepared claim forms and evidence packets for veterans and has charged a fee equal to five times any resulting monthly benefit increase.

[TAKE ACTION: Urge Your Lawmakers to Protect Veterans From Predatory Claims Companies]

In a May 20 ruling, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina found the evidence was undisputed that Veterans Guardian acted as an unaccredited agent when preparing and presenting both initial and non-initial VA claims. The court concluded the company’s actions violated federal law.

The ruling is significant not only because of what the court found, but because Veterans Guardian was able to continue operating despite repeated warnings from the VA. According to the court record, the VA sent Veterans Guardian cease-and-desist letters in 2019 and 2024, yet the company continued preparing claims and charging fees.

An Aug. 3 ruling in the same class-action lawsuit found Veterans Guardian committed unfair trade practices under North Carolina law during much of the class period. The court noted the company instructed veterans not to identify Veterans Guardian’s involvement in materials submitted to the VA, undermining the department’s ability to detect accreditation violations or review the reasonableness of fees.

The court also found Veterans Guardian collected more than $250 million from members of the certified classes. The case continues as the court considers damages and remaining debt-collection claims.

Veterans Guardian has disputed the allegations and argues its services constitute permissible consulting rather than claims representation. But the court rejected the idea that a company can avoid federal accreditation simply by having the veteran sign and mail a claim packet prepared by the company.

Why This Case Matters

What a company actually does for a veteran is more important than whether it calls those services “consulting,” “coaching,” “education,” or “technology support.”

This litigation reinforces what the VA, the Government Accountability Office (GAO), and veterans service organizations have warned for years: The VA has few effective tools for addressing unaccredited actors.

A 2025 GAO report found VA’s response to complaints about claims agents depends heavily on whether the subject of the complaint is accredited. The VA can investigate and discipline accredited representatives, but officials told GAO they have “limited options” when dealing with unaccredited individuals because the department lacks enforcement authority.

The VA may investigate a complaint, send a cease-and-desist letter, or refer suspected criminal activity to law enforcement; however, it generally cannot impose a meaningful penalty even though an unaccredited business unlawfully charged a veteran for claims assistance.

Congress Created the Gap … and Must Close It

Congress removed criminal penalties for unauthorized claims assistance in 2006. Since then, a largely unregulated industry has grown around helping veterans pursue disability compensation, often charging thousands or even tens of thousands of dollars for services available free of charge from accredited veterans service organizations like Veterans of Foreign Wars, Disabled American Veterans, or the American Legion.

[RELATED: Find a VA-Accredited Representative or Veterans Service Organization]

MOAA supports the bipartisan GUARD VA Benefits Act (H.R. 1732) and the SAFEGUARD Veterans Act (H.R. 9105 | S. 4646), legislation which would reinstate criminal penalties for unaccredited actors who charge veterans unauthorized fees.

Restoring these penalties would not limit veterans’ ability to seek claims assistance. The legislation would instead provide law enforcement with a clear tool to pursue those who knowingly profit by violating existing law.

The VA should continue improving veteran education, complaint tracking, and oversight of its accreditation program. But public warnings are not a substitute for enforcement authority.

The recent court rulings show the scale of harm that can occur while the VA sends letters and waits for another agency, state government, or private litigant to intervene. Veterans should not have to depend on a patchwork of state consumer-protection laws or lengthy class-action litigation to recover benefits taken through unlawful fees.

Use MOAA’s Legislative Action Center to tell lawmakers they must close the enforcement gap they created and pass legislation to ensure the laws intended to protect veterans can be enforced.