A dispute is filed either via the CRA (FCRA 611) or or directly with the party who reported information to the CRA (FCRA 623(a)(8)) that a consumer asserts is inaccurate.
The rules implementing the direct dispute process, as codified at 16 CFR 660.4, explicitly exempt any dispute from the direct dispute process that is related to credit inquiries. The reason, as explained in the final rules package published in the Federal Register, is that credit inquiries pertain to requests to view what others have reported to a CRA, and dont relate to the accuracy of information that is furnished to a consumer's credit file. Thus, there is no "furnisher" as defined under the direct dispute process, and no basis for any direct dispute.
Thus, you must file a dispute with the CRA to contest the accuracy of credit inquiries in your file.
Disputes under FCRA 611 relate broadly to "any item of information in a consumer's credit file."
The basis for any inquiry is either that the party had express consumer authorization for the inquiry, or that the inquiry met at least one of the permissbile purposes that are set forth in one or more of the subsections of FCRA 604.
A party is required to provide a statement of at least one of those permissble purposes when making the inquiry.
The permissible purpose associated with telecomm services is that it must have been initiated by the consumer, and the business transaction must have a legitmate business purpose associated with it that warrants the business need to review the consumer's credit report. See FCRA 604(a)(3)(F).
If you never even ititiated a business transaction with them, then any inquiry fails under both of those provisions, and thus is lacks any permissible purpose.
File a dispute via the CRA under FCRA 611(a) that asserts a lack of any permissible purpose, citing FCRA 604(a)(3)(F) as the only permisslbe purpose that would apply to any business transaction for telecomm services.
In that dispute, clearly assert that the inquiry lacked any permissible purpose, and thus is in violation of FCRA 604.
As an alternative, you can assert that if you never had a business transaction with Verizon, then any statement by them to the contrary must have resulted from someone else having used your identity in an attempt to make the asserted business transaction.
You could then file a police report and send to the CRA, obtaining block of the inquiry under the identity theft process set forth in FCRA 605B.
Blocking of the information under section 605B does not require any involvement of the business, and only involves your assertion that you never authorized the asserted business transaction.
