How CertaPet Built an ESA Platform Around Law, Clinical Standards, and Trust

A Company Built to Solve a Narrow, Persistent Problem

When Erik Rivera founded CertaPet in 2014, emotional support animals (ESAs) occupied a legal and clinical gray zone that confused both patients and providers. Telehealth was still developing, federal guidance was fragmented, and people seeking legitimate mental health support often had no idea how to find clinicians familiar with ESA requirements. 

Rivera, a former Navy EOD special operations officer, did not set out to merely create a documentation business. He built a narrowly focused telehealth platform intended to connect individuals with licensed mental health professionals capable of making lawful, clinically grounded ESA determinations.

The origin of the company was personal. Shortly after Rivera left the military, an immediate family member called asking how to find a therapist who could help navigate the ESA process. Rivera realized that even people actively seeking care struggled to locate providers who understood both the therapeutic and legal dimensions of ESAs. 

That challenge was particularly acute for veterans, many of whom faced long wait times and limited access within the VA system in the mid-2010s. Rivera identified a discovery and access problem rather than a demand problem, and he built CertaPet to address that gap.

How CertaPet Works From Intake to Decision

CertaPet operates as a specialized telehealth platform rather than a registry or certification service. Users begin with an online prescreening designed to assess whether they may be appropriate candidates for evaluation. If they choose to proceed, they complete a detailed intake assessment that allows a clinician to understand their mental health history, symptoms, and functional limitations.

The platform then matches users with licensed mental health professionals authorized to practice in the user’s state. Interstate licensing rules require state-specific authorization, which means the process varies depending on where a user lives. For example, California imposes additional documentation and relationship-duration requirements for ESA letters under its state fair housing laws, while Texas largely mirrors federal Fair Housing Act standards without imposing the same pre-existing treatment thresholds. These differences require platforms operating nationally to adjust workflows on a state-by-state basis.

After evaluation, the clinician independently determines whether an ESA is clinically appropriate as part of the patient’s treatment plan. If the clinician declines to recommend an ESA, no letter is issued. Rivera emphasized that the platform facilitates access to care rather than guaranteeing a particular outcome.

The Legal Framework Governing Emotional Support Animals

Emotional support animals derive legal protection primarily from the Fair Housing Act, codified at 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601–3619, and interpreted through HUD guidance. Under this framework, housing providers must make reasonable accommodations for assistance animals, including ESAs, when supported by appropriate documentation from a licensed healthcare provider.

Service animals and ESAs sit in different legal categories, and that difference matters in everyday life. Under the ADA, a service animal is generally a dog that has been individually trained to do work or perform tasks for a person with a disability – for example, guiding a blind handler, alerting a person with epilepsy to an oncoming seizure, interrupting self-harming behaviors, retrieving medication, or providing physical balance support. 

Merely providing “comfort” or emotional support alone does not count as a trained task. As a result, ESAs do not have the same public access rights to enter restaurants, stores, or other public accommodations as service animals do. The ADA also recognizes miniature horses as a limited exception: they may qualify as service animals when they are individually trained to perform disability-related tasks. 

Public accommodations must assess them based on factors such as being housebroken, size, weight, handler control, and whether their presence compromises safety, rather than treating them as automatic service animals.

Housing law uses broader terminology. HUD treats “assistance animals” as a category that includes both service animals and other animals that provide emotional support that alleviates the effects of a disability, which is why ESAs can receive housing accommodations even though they do not qualify as ADA service animals. 

Air travel is no longer covered for ESAs. The Air Carrier Access Act was amended in 2020 to exclude ESAs, limiting protections to trained service animals and psychiatric service dogs. ESAs also do not have public access rights to stores, restaurants, or hotels, which remain reserved for service animals under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Rivera noted that confusion among various categories of “working” animals often fuels both misuse of systems and resentment, particularly when people assume ESAs confer the same rights as service animals.

Clinical Oversight and Meaningful Evaluation

To avoid turning evaluations into what critics describe as “rubber stamps,” CertaPet employs a “Head of Clinical Development” who reviews clinician practices and monitors compliance with internal standards. According to Rivera, the company’s role is to ensure clinicians follow best practices for establishing care, conducting assessments, and documenting decisions consistent with both clinical ethics and housing law requirements.

Many users continue therapy with the clinicians they meet through the platform, though ongoing care is not required. Rivera described CertaPet’s role as facilitating discovery and initial access rather than replacing traditional therapeutic relationships or serving as a registry for working animals.

Fraud, Misuse, and the Certificate-Mill Problem

Service animal fraud has become a major public issue, driven largely by online registries and purchased accessories that falsely claim legal recognition. Federal agencies have repeatedly stated that service animal registries have no legal standing, a point reinforced by the ADA.

Rivera draws a sharp distinction between those operations and ESA telehealth platforms that adhere to legal and clinical standards. CertaPet does not sell registries, ID cards, or vests, and it does not claim to confer service animal status. Instead, the company focuses on lawful ESA recommendations tied to treatment plans and housing accommodations.

For consumers trying to avoid fraudulent services, Rivera identified several red flags: promises of instant approval, reliance on registries, absence of licensed clinicians, and claims that ESAs have public access rights. States have begun imposing civil penalties for misrepresenting animals as service animals, increasing the legal risk for consumers who rely on misleading services.

What Doing It Right Looks Like

Rivera argues that responsible regulation in this space would emphasize clinician accountability, clear disclosure of legal limits, and enforcement against fraudulent registries. He also acknowledges compliance is costly, especially since it requires continuous monitoring of fifty different state regimes as laws evolve.

Looking ahead, Rivera says he wants CertaPet to be known for building a platform that respected both patients and the law, even when that meant slower growth. For veterans and clinicians alike, his goal is simple: to be recognized as a company that did the hard work necessary to operate responsibly in one of mental health care’s most legally complex niches.