I was thinking maybe the CA reported this TL to the CRAs prior to receiving the DV, but the TL already shows as disputed, so there went that theory. 
Next, in your DV request, did you dispute anything or simply ask for debt validation? A DV by itself is not a dispute. You're simply asking for information. Assuming your DV letter did not dispute anything, I see 2 violations. One for reporting after receiving a DV request, and one for marking it as disputed.
One caveat. I read one of the FTC opinion letters recently that addressed this exact scenario. I'll have to look up which one it is, but the answer in that letter was that the initial reporting to the CRA, even after receiving a DV, was not a violation. This opinion letter was written in 1996 I believe, and is of course, just an opinion. Robert mentions case law stating the opposite, and I will defer to him, but thought it worth mentioning.
@Shokk wrote:I was thinking maybe the CA reported this TL to the CRAs prior to receiving the DV, but the TL already shows as disputed, so there went that theory.
Next, in your DV request, did you dispute anything or simply ask for debt validation? A DV by itself is not a dispute. You're simply asking for information. Assuming your DV letter did not dispute anything, I see 2 violations. One for reporting after receiving a DV request, and one for marking it as disputed.
One caveat. I read one of the FTC opinion letters recently that addressed this exact scenario. I'll have to look up which one it is, but the answer in that letter was that the initial reporting to the CRA, even after receiving a DV, was not a violation. This opinion letter was written in 1996 I believe, and is of course, just an opinion. Robert mentions case law stating the opposite, and I will defer to him, but thought it worth mentioning.
Not exactly true. It is not a dispute under the FCRA but by sending a DV you are disputing something about the alleged debt. Be it the balance, the OC or whatever, you are disputing it.
It is most definitely a violation to report once a DV is received. The FTC opinion letter states that. Here are 2 responses that say they cannot report once a DV is received.
II. "Is it permissible under the FDCPA for a debt collector to report, or continue to report, a consumer's charged-off debt to a consumer reporting agency after the debt collector has received, but not responded to, a consumer's written dispute during the 30-day validation period detailed in § 1692g?" As you know, Section 1692g(b) requires the debt collector to cease collection of the debt at issue if a written dispute is received within the 30-day validation period until verification is obtained. Because we believe that reporting a charged-off debt to a consumer reporting agency, particularly at this stage of the collection process, constitutes "collection activity" on the part of the collector, our answer to your question is No. Although the FDCPA is unclear on this point, we believe the reality is that debt collectors use the reporting mechanism as a tool to persuade consumers to pay, just like dunning letters and telephone calls. Of course, if a dispute is received after a debt has been reported to a consumer reporting agency, the debt collector is obligated by Section 1692e(8) to inform the consumer reporting agency of the dispute.
IV. "Would the following action by a debt collector constitute continued collection activity under § 1692g(b): reporting a charged-off consumer debt to a consumer reporting agency as disputed in accordance with § 1692e(8), when the debt collector became aware of the dispute when the consumer sent a written dispute to the debt collector during the 30-day validation period, and no verification of the debt has been provided by the debt collector?"
Yes. As stated in our answer to Question II, we view reporting to a consumer reporting agency as a collection activity prohibited by § 1692g(b) after a written dispute is received and no verification has been provided. Again, however, a debt collector must report a dispute received after a debt has been reported under § 1692e(8).