Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Enforcement Versus the Method of Verification: What Past Cases Teach You About Demands for Procedure Descriptions

When you dispute an error on your credit report, the credit bureau often sends back a one-word response: “Verified.” But under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, that is not enough. The law requires bureaus to conduct a reasonable investigation and, if you ask, provide a description of the procedure used to verify disputed information.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has repeatedly stepped in to hold credit bureaus accountable when they fail to meet these obligations. By looking at past enforcement actions, consumers can learn how to strengthen their own use of the Method of Verification dispute letter.

What the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Found

In multiple cases, the CFPB determined that bureaus were:

• Relying on automated responses instead of real investigations.

• Ignoring supporting documents submitted by consumers.

• Failing to provide adequate procedure descriptions when asked.

These enforcement actions show that even the regulators recognize how often the system falls short. If the CFPB says the investigations are inadequate, then your right to demand proper verification becomes even more powerful.

The Fair Credit Reporting Act and Procedure Descriptions

Section 611(a)(7) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act is clear: if a consumer requests it, the credit bureau must provide a description of the procedure it used to determine that disputed information was accurate.

This is not optional. It is a legal requirement. And yet, many bureaus respond with vague, unhelpful answers like: “We verified the account with the creditor.” That is exactly the type of weak response that enforcement actions have criticized.

Lessons From Past Cases

1. Automation is not verification. When the bureau uses a code-based system instead of reviewing documents, it is not complying with the spirit of the law.

2. Consumer evidence cannot be ignored. If you provide receipts, letters, or contracts, the bureau must review them.

3. Vague responses are not enough. “We checked with the creditor” is not a description of a procedure — it is a dodge.

A Consumer Example

Lisa disputed a charge-off that did not belong to her. The bureau replied “verified.” She then sent a Method of Verification dispute letter. The bureau responded with a generic line: “Verified with creditor.” Lisa filed a complaint with the CFPB, referencing their past enforcement findings. Faced with the pressure of regulatory scrutiny, the bureau deleted the account.

What This Means for You

The CFPB’s enforcement record proves that consumers are not imagining the problem. Bureaus do cut corners. They do ignore evidence. And they do send out weak responses that fail to meet the law’s requirements.

This is why the Method of Verification dispute letter is so important. It puts pressure on the bureau to step out of automation and into accountability — and if they fail, you can escalate with a complaint backed by precedent.

The Next Step: Put These Lessons Into Action

You do not need to be a lawyer to use the law effectively. That is why I created the Method of Verification Masterclass and Letters Pack. Inside, you will discover:

• How to cite the Fair Credit Reporting Act and use procedure requests correctly.

• Letters crafted to expose weak responses.

• A proven sequence to move from dispute, to verification demand, to escalation.

If regulators have said the bureaus are failing, you can use that same reasoning to demand fair treatment for yourself.

👉 Get the Method of Verification Masterclass and Letters Pack today and apply the same pressure regulators use.