verify public record information. (P) According to the fall 2016 Supervisory Highlights , Consumer Bureau examiners determined that one or more debt collectors never investigated indirect disputes that lacked detail or were not accompanied by attachments with relevant information from the consumer. Examiners also found that notifications sent to consumers about disputes considered frivolous failed to identify for the consumers the type of material that they could provide in order for the debt collector to complete the investigation of the disputed item. (Q) A February 2014 Consumer Bureau report titled Credit Reporting Complaint Snapshot found that consumers are confused about the extent to which the nationwide CRAs are required to provide them with validation and documentation of a debt that appears on their credit report. (R) As evidence that the current system lacks sufficient market incentives for CRAs to develop more robust procedures to increase the accuracy and completeness of information on credit reports, litigation discovery documented by the National Consumer Law Center ( NCLC ), as part of a January 2009 report titled, Automated Injustice: How a Mechanized Dispute System Frustrates Consumers Seeking to Fix Errors in Their Credit Reports , showed that at least two of the three largest CRAs use quota systems to force employees to process disputes hastily and without the opportunity for conducting meaningful investigations. At least one nationwide CRA only allowed dispute resolution staff five minutes to handle a consumer’s call. Furthermore, these CRAs were found to have awarded bonuses for meeting quotas and punished those who didn’t meet production numbers with probation. (S) Unlike most other business relationships, where consumers can register their satisfaction or unhappiness with a particular credit product or service simply by taking their business elsewhere, consumers have no say in whether their information is included in the CRAs databases and limited legal remedies to hold the CRAs