Consumer complaint received 2025-07-14 00:00:00
Product: Payday loan, title loan, personal loan, or advance loan — Installment loan
Issue: Getting the loan — 
Company: ENOVA INTERNATIONAL, INC.
State: TX

Complaint narrative:
XXXX XXXX installment loans for XXXX XXXX. I signed the agreement with XXXX XXXX  only. However, XXXX keeps changing the story on who originated the loan.XXXX refuses to respond to questions and dispute letters as a stall tactic and routinely violates consumer rights. 
I have filed complaints with both the Texas OCCC and FDIC, and I do not believe XXXX and XXXX were being truthful with either. Their responses do not match what XXXX  sent me. In an email that was a supposed Final Response and what was later claimed to be official validation, XXXX  claimed, On XX/XX/XXXX, you opened an Installment loan in the amount of {$7400.00} with XXXX  you then signed the loan agreement at XXXX XXXX  on XX/XX/XXXX, acknowledging that you understood and accepted the terms and conditions associated with the Installment loan. These Terms and Conditions included At the time I made the XXXX  complaint, I did not have XXXX  response since it was sent afterwards, and I didnt include it with the FDIC complaint since I didnt realize at the time the responses had been so different. I only rediscovered it later when looking back at everything XXXX  sent me and was baffled. 
My loan document only has a signature block from XXXX XXXX, one that lacks time zone and IP information for their signature, which while legal, also has some curious asymmetries, considering my signature has an IP. A timezone would show XXXX actually signed this, and its missing. XXXX  does fund some loans, according to their own disclosures in emails. Its entirely possible XXXX  funded this as well, and it would match what they claimed. its alarming that the response is so different from what was provided to other regulators and has no mention of XXXX XXXX. 
The following just highlights some more acts of deception by XXXX, and XXXX needs to be aware of their activities. 
I sent a dispute letter to XXXX XXXX, as stated in my loan document, on XX/XX/XXXX. I have the XXXX delivery information attached. XXXX  refused to respond for several weeks, and in that time, continued collection emails and reports to the credit bureaus. I finally received a low-effort response on XX/XX/XXXX regurgitating information found in the loan document and claiming yet again that my loan was governed only by Kentucky law . They also reaffirmed that the response sent from XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX was the official documentation to validate my debt. Note this validation is the one claiming I opened the loan with XXXX, not XXXX. 
XXXX  the servicer claims they are not subject to XXXX law many times, so its unclear which state laws they are even supposed to be following in this case where they accelerate loans on whichever timetable they choose and without due dates or notifications of a consumers right to dispute. XXXX  is lax on this, but XXXX  claims not to be under XXXX  domain. They are not licensed in Illinois, where they are headquartered. This is a regulatory black hole. XXXX  also has been acting as a debt collector, and in XXXX, such activities require a debt collection surety bond to be filed with the Texas Secretary of State ; its not constrained to traditional third party debt collectors. XXXX had one filed on the XXXX XXXX  XXXX site, which runs counter to their claims of ot being subject to XXXX  laws, but they are also licensed XXXX  lenders ( both the finance and servicer entities ) under the XXXX, so its impossible to get a straight answer from them. I tried many times in XXXX to verify that XXXX had the correct surety bond with XXXX XXXX, their surety provider, as their site has a bond verification tool. I was unable to and contacted XXXX  multiple times asking for proof since they were acting in this capacity as a debt collector. They refused to respond at all. I was able to verify today on the XXXX XXXX  tool that the bond is active, which means XXXX  likely had the listing updated, especially since I sent them the exact bond number in one of my multiple emails that went unanswered. However, this is an act of deception as XXXX  refused to respond to me or say this is a XXXX XXXX website issue. Ive attached my original email asking them to verify the bond. 

Due to this unclear chain of custody and XXXX refusal to respond to any of my questions, I opened a dispute with XXXX  on XX/XX/XXXX to dispute the trade line. As an act of retaliation, XXXX  accelerated the loan today, XX/XX/XXXX, and also is refusing to provide any due dates or information on the true chain of custody, even when presented with conflicting evidence from their own company. I also asked which state laws governed their collections and acceleration, and they have refused to respond.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation