Honestly, that sounds like a failing of the VPN services.
At the least, they should push a null default route to users that connect (assuming we're talking about the kind of VPN services that advertise as "protect your privacy with a VPN!").
Crappy ones also sometimes leak UDP packets. Or all DNS queries or whatever. If you use crappy VPNs it's your fault if you then don't get the protection you want, no matter the transport protocol.
Or rather: Using IPv4 doesn't guarantee non-crapyness of a VPN provider.
But: Working IPv6 support guarantees at least some level of proficiency by the VPN provider, so they might be more reliable candidates to begin with.
But there's more needed with IPv6 than routing properly. The VPN provider needs to assign IPv6 addresses to customers, and that's harder than just NATing stuff. It's almost like being an IPv6 ISP.
But I've done a toy implementation. To get "anonymous" IPv6 addresses, so I could test VPN service clients for IPv6 leaks, without pwning myself. I needed a little help from an IVPN engineer, but it wasn't that hard.
At the least, they should push a null default route to users that connect (assuming we're talking about the kind of VPN services that advertise as "protect your privacy with a VPN!").