Enova International, Inc., which does business as CNU Online Holdings, faces a proposed class action that claims the financial services company has systematically accessed consumers’ credit reports by falsely representing that they’ve applied for a loan.
The plaintiff, a Houston, Texas resident, claims CNU damaged his credit by obtaining his credit report under false pretenses and without his authorization, as he “did not have any form of relationship” with the defendant.
According to the suit, CNU has caused the plaintiff and others “significant harm,” including in the form of invasion of privacy, mental and emotional distress, and time wasted monitoring their credit reports for fraudulent activity.
Per the case, a copy of the plaintiff’s credit reported that he obtained from non-party ChexSystems on January 4, 2021 showed that non-party Clarity Services had obtained the report on CNU’s behalf in August 2019. Upon calling the defendant, the plaintiff was informed by the company’s automated system that it could not locate an account associated with his phone number, the suit says. A live representative then told the plaintiff that she could not locate an active account for him, and stated that he never had a payday loan with the company and had, in fact, been rejected for a loan “at some point,” according to the complaint.
The plaintiff says he was “concerned” by the information he was provided considering he had never applied for a payday loan from CNU Online Holdings.
After ordering a copy of his credit report from Clarity Services, the plaintiff filed a non-permissible pull dispute with the company and attempted to have the inquiry on the ChexSystems report investigated and disputed as well, the suit relays.
According to the case, the plaintiff had no form of relationship with the defendant at the time his credit report was pulled and was not in the process of forming any such relationship. The lawsuit argues that the defendant falsely represented to ChexSystems and Clarity Services that it had a business relationship with the plaintiff and was attempting to collect a debt. As a result, the plaintiff’s “highly private” credit information was obtained by the defendant without his authorization and under false pretenses, the suit says.
The case attests that the defendant’s inquiry will remain on the plaintiff’s credit report for years and gives “the false impression” that he applied for a payday loan and is thus a high-risk credit customer.
Get class action lawsuit news sent to your inbox – sign up for ClassAction.org’s newsletter here.