By Edward Henderson
Contributing Writer
SACRAMENTO — Gov. Gavin Newsom signed California Senate Bill 694, a measure approved by the Legislature aimed at curbing what supporters call predatory practices against veterans seeking federal benefits.
The NAACP California Hawaii State Conference urged Newsom to reject the measure, arguing it could deepen racial inequities and limit access to critical assistance for Black veterans and other historically marginalized groups.
SB 694, authored by state Sen. Bob Archuleta, D–Norwalk, reinforces a federal ban on charging veterans for assistance with initial disability claims unless the provider is federally accredited. The bill also tightens penalties related to unauthorized access to veterans’ personal information and restricts fees for claims assistance. Supporters say the legislation is long–overdue consumer protection.
Critics, on the other hand, say it goes too far, eliminating lawful options without addressing systemic barriers in the veterans’ benefits system.
In a letter to Gov. Newsom, the state NAACP emphasized that while it strongly supports protecting veterans from fraud, SB 694 “raises serious equity and civil rights concerns” and risks reducing choice for veterans who already struggle to navigate a complex and backlogged system.
“Access to earned veterans benefits is not simply an administrative issue. It is a civil rights issue,” the NAACP wrote. “Veterans of color have long experienced systemic disparities in benefit access, claim approvals and disability ratings.”
Those disparities are well-documented. Studies have shown that Black veterans are more likely to receive lower disability ratings and face longer delays in benefits processing, contributing to higher rates of housing instability, unemployment and unmet health needs. The NAACP argues SB 694 could worsen those outcomes by removing paid assistance options many veterans rely on when free services are unavailable or overstretched.
During Senate hearings last year, Archuleta framed SB 694 as a necessary response to an industry he says exploits veterans.
“Since 2006, we have seen an explosion of a new industry of businesses that charge veterans for assistance with benefits and claims without being accredited or licensed or overseen in any way, shape or form,” Archuleta said. “It is the lack of institutional oversight over these for-profit companies that is the crux of the problem that this bill seeks to address.”
Archuleta, a veteran and chair of the Senate Military and Veterans Affairs Committee, pointed to cases where companies charged veterans fees equal to five times their monthly benefit increase. For veterans receiving large disability upgrades, he said, that could mean tens of thousands of dollars for a relatively small amount of work.
“Our veterans can’t wait,” Archuleta told colleagues. “This is the time to protect our veterans and make sure no one is making millions off their sacrifice.”
Veterans advocates echoed those concerns. David West, president of the California Association of Veteran Service Agencies, testified that veterans already have free options through county veterans service officers and accredited organizations.
“This is not about choice,” West said. “This is about stripping away federal protections for veterans so that for-profit companies can exploit them.”
But the NAACP countered that the reality on the ground is more complicated, particularly for Black veterans, rural veterans, and those with disabilities or service-connected trauma. In its letter, the organization noted that many veterans service organizations face staffing shortages, long wait times, and limited capacity.
“For veterans with complex disability claims, limited digital access, language barriers, or service-connected trauma, lawful paid consultants often provide hands-on, culturally responsive and individualized support,” the NAACP wrote.
The organization also cited polling showing that many veterans believe they should have the right to choose who helps them with their claims, including private consultants if they believe that option best meets their needs.
While SB 694 is intended to stop bad actors — often referred to as “claim sharks” — the NAACP argued the bill relies on broad prohibition rather than targeted regulation. By restricting paid assistance to federally accredited providers without expanding access to those providers, the organization says the bill could unintentionally harm veterans it seeks to protect.
“This approach shifts decision-making power away from veterans themselves,” the letter states, “and limits their ability to choose who they trust.”
The NAACP urged Newsom to instead allow space for a bipartisan alternative being advanced by Assemblywoman LaShae Sharp Collins, D-La Mesa, and Jeff Gonzalez, R-Indio. That proposal, the civil rights organization explained, would preserve veteran choice while establishing clear guardrails, transparency requirements and enforcement mechanisms to hold predatory actors accountable.
“At a time when the VA system remains difficult to navigate,” the NAACP warned, “removing lawful sources of assistance without addressing systemic inequities risks increasing racial disparities and further eroding trust among veterans of color.”
Archuleta was happy to see his bill signed into law.
“As chair of the Senate Committee on Military and Veterans Affairs and as a veteran myself, I am pleased to see SB 694 signed into law,” he said. “This is a clear victory for veterans and their families. California is sending a strong message that exploitation of those who served will not be tolerated.
“Protecting veterans is not optional,” Archuleta added. “It is our responsibility.”
Edward Henderson is a reporter for California Black Media.
