When you dispute a debt, the law requires a reasonable investigation.

But what does that actually mean?

The Legal Standard

Under the FCRA, once a credit bureau notifies a furnisher of a dispute, the furnisher must:

• Conduct a reasonable investigation
• Review all relevant information provided
• Correct inaccurate or incomplete reporting

A “reasonable investigation” is fact-specific.

It must be more than rubber-stamping prior information.

What Is NOT Reasonable?

Courts have found investigations unreasonable when:

• The furnisher blindly verifies its own internal records.
• No documentation is reviewed.
• Obvious inconsistencies are ignored.
• The dispute is coded incorrectly.
• The furnisher relies solely on automated systems without review.

An investigation must involve meaningful review.

What May Be Considered Reasonable?

• Reviewing underlying account records.
• Comparing payment history.
• Reviewing dispute documentation.
• Confirming balance calculations.
• Correcting errors when found.

The more detailed your dispute, the more thorough the investigation must be.

Why This Matters

If a furnisher fails to conduct a reasonable investigation after receiving notice from a credit bureau, you may have:

• A private right of action under the FCRA
• The ability to seek actual damages
• Potential statutory or punitive damages for willful violations
• Attorney’s fees

The investigation requirement is one of the strongest consumer protections in credit reporting law.