Evaluator fraud and oversight

What this component proposes

Create oversight and accountability for service-dog evaluators and credential issuers.

• Define evaluator qualifications, conflict-of-interest rules and audit requirements.
• Provide investigation and sanctions for deliberate fraudulent evaluations.
• Protect teams from arbitrary evaluator action through review and appeal.

Current federal law and proposed change

This component describes a proposed reform, not an enacted federal requirement. Existing protections depend on the setting and may arise under the ADA, Rehabilitation Act, Fair Housing Act, Air Carrier Access Act, veterans' benefits laws or state law. The general DOJ references below explain ADA public-access rules only; they do not establish every setting-specific rule or endorse this proposal. A component-specific, source-cited legal comparison is still required.

Primary federal references

• U.S. DOJ: ADA Service Animals FAQ (general public-access baseline)
• U.S. DOJ: ADA Service Animals Requirements

These sources explain general ADA public-access guidance, not every setting-specific rule. They do not endorse this legislative proposal. A full cross-statute legal analysis is still in development.

Implementation and legal questions

• Avoid a closed evaluator market that excludes owner-trained or rural teams.
• Fraud investigations must protect innocent handlers and due process.

Questions for working teams and stakeholders

1. What evaluator conflicts of interest concern you?
2. How should oversight distinguish error from deliberate fraud?

Feedback is welcome from owner-trained and professionally trained teams, including people who oppose mandatory registration. Please reference Component 26 in your response.

Content status: consultation summary. Detailed source-by-source legal verification remains pending. This is not final bill text, a legal opinion, or a representation that any government agency has endorsed the initiative.