Credit One Bank Sued for Robocalls and Harassment — Settlements Explained

Credit One Bank, N.A. — a Nevada-based subprime credit card issuer — faces a mounting wave of class action lawsuits and state enforcement actions alleging it systematically bombarded consumers with harassing, automated debt collection calls, often in direct violation of federal and state law. The allegations span years, multiple courts, and multiple states, and they have cost the bank tens of millions of dollars in penalties and settlement funds.

The most significant resolution came in February 2026, when Riverside County Superior Court entered a $10.2 million judgment against Credit One following a civil enforcement action brought by the California Debt Collection Task Force — a statewide coalition of district attorneys from Los Angeles, San Diego, Riverside, and Santa Clara counties. Separately, a $14 million federal class action settlement over robocalls made between 2014 and 2019 has opened a claims window for consumers who received unauthorized automated calls. Both cases are now closed or in final resolution. New individual class actions filed in 2025 remain pending.

Credit One Bank Lawsuit Timeline and Updates

2016 — First Wave of TCPA Class Actions Filed

Consumer complaints against Credit One Bank began accumulating long before regulators moved. In November 2016, plaintiff David T., a Georgia consumer, filed a Telephone Consumer Protection Act lawsuit alleging he had received more than 3,000 calls from Credit One Bank attempting to collect on an alleged credit card debt.

He claimed he had expressly revoked consent and that Credit One used an automated telephone dialing system — a robocall technology the TCPA heavily restricts. The TCPA allows damages of $500 per negligent violation and $1,500 per willful violation. At 3,000 calls, the potential exposure was significant.

January 2018 — Two More Class Actions Filed in Federal Court

Consumer litigation against Credit One Bank accelerated into 2018. In January, a proposed class action alleging TCPA violations was filed against Credit One Bank, N.A. A second lawsuit followed that same month, this one alleging the bank attempted to collect a debt it had already sold off to another entity — a clear violation of debt collection law.

The pattern was already forming: Credit One’s collection operations were generating complaints across multiple states and legal theories simultaneously.

2019 — Federal Jury Finds Credit One Liable Under the Rosenthal Act

This is the date that matters most for understanding what came after. A federal jury found Credit One Bank liable for violating California’s Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Rosenthal Act is broader than its federal counterpart, the FDCPA — it covers original creditors like Credit One, not just third-party collectors.

The jury’s finding was clear. Credit One’s calling practices constituted harassment under California law. What happened next was the real problem.

2020 — Express Payment Fee Class Action Filed in New York

Even as the robocall litigation continued, a separate class action emerged targeting a different Credit One practice. Plaintiffs Anthony Waldon of New York and Jason Goldstein of Florida sued Credit One in the Southern District of New York, alleging the bank charged illegal $9.95 “express payment” fees to customers paying online.

Under the Truth in Lending Act, creditors cannot charge a separate payment fee unless a live representative is involved in an expedited transaction. Credit One’s automated system, the plaintiffs argued, did not qualify. The case, Waldon v. Credit One Bank, N.A., Case No. 7:20-cv-10003, alleged the bank had collected more than $5 million through these fees. This case consolidated into a broader pattern of customer-facing charges that critics labeled “junk fees.”

January 2021 — California Debt Collection Task Force Files Civil Complaint

The California Debt Collection Task Force, armed with the 2019 federal jury verdict, filed a civil consumer protection complaint against Credit One Bank. The case, CVRI2101654, was filed in Riverside County Superior Court.

The complaint alleged Credit One, directly and through its vendor call centers, made debt collection calls with unreasonable and excessive frequency to California residents. The specific policy at issue: Credit One allowed vendors to place up to eight calls per day, plus two additional calls per day under certain circumstances, on overdue accounts — and allowed calls on consecutive days.

That adds up to ten calls a day, every day. California’s Rosenthal Act prohibits calling with such frequency as to constitute harassment. Ten calls a day qualifies.

2021 — Illinois TCPA Class Action Over Unsolicited Marketing Calls

In early 2021, an Illinois woman named Adriane Jefferson filed a class action in the Northern District of Illinois — Case No. 1:21-cv-00532 — alleging Credit One used prerecorded marketing messages to call her cellphone repeatedly without consent. Jefferson alleged she had specifically asked Credit One to stop calling her. The calls continued.

This case targeted marketing calls, not just debt collection calls, widening the legal exposure. The bank’s calling systems were generating liability on two separate fronts simultaneously.

Late 2021 — $14 Million Federal TCPA Class Action Settlement Reached

Credit One Bank agreed to a $14 million class action settlement fund to resolve TCPA claims covering the period from 2014 to 2019. The settlement covers consumers who received automated or prerecorded calls from Credit One or affiliated third-party call centers without prior express consent — including people who were never Credit One customers but whose numbers were mistakenly added to automated call lists.

The maximum individual payout is $1,000, though realistic payouts typically fall between $100 and $500 depending on the total number of valid claims submitted. Final court approval was pending as of early 2026, and the official claims window was reported as active.

August 2025 — Mingura v. Credit One Bank Filed in Northern District of California

Plaintiff Rebeca Mingura filed a new class action on August 8, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California — Case No. 4:25-cv-06712. Mingura, a disabled senior citizen, alleged that Credit One began contacting her by phone, text, and email in April 2025 to collect debts on three accounts.

She claims she received more than 578 calls between April and July 2025, often within minutes of each other. She alleges violations of the TCPA, the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and California’s Unfair Competition Law. In July 2025, her attorney sent a formal cease-and-desist letter. The bank allegedly continued calling anyway.

The lawsuit seeks $500 per negligent TCPA violation, $1,500 per willful violation, plus treble damages under California elder abuse law. The case is represented by David McGlothlin and Pamela E. Prescott of Kazerouni Law Group APC.

November–December 2025 — Two More Class Actions Filed in Alabama and Florida

Plaintiff Ricky Ashford filed a class action on approximately December 2, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama — Ashford v. Credit One Bank N.A., Case No. 2:25-cv-00536. Ashford alleged Credit One placed approximately 315 calls to his personal number between April and July 2025, including calls concerning a debt he claims may have already been sold.

The lawsuit adds allegations of invasion of privacy and violations of FCC caller ID regulations on top of the TCPA claims. Ashford seeks $500 to $1,500 per call. On December 31, 2025, plaintiff Joseph Nicos Snyder filed a separate class action in Florida federal court, alleging Credit One called his number, which was registered on the National Do Not Call Registry, multiple times between April and May 2025.

February 19–20, 2026 — $10.2 Million State Judgment Entered

Riverside County Superior Court Judge Harold Hopp signed the Stipulated Judgment on February 19, 2026, resolving the California Debt Collection Task Force’s civil enforcement case. Credit One agreed to pay $10.2 million: $9 million in civil penalties and $1.2 million in investigative costs. Credit One did not admit wrongdoing.

The judgment also requires Credit One to comply with state and federal debt collection law going forward and to maintain business practices designed to prevent future violations. The Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office alone was entitled to receive approximately $2.55 million under the penalty distribution formula.

What the Lawsuits Allege: The 10-Call-Per-Day Policy

The core allegation in the California state enforcement case is not complicated. Credit One Bank had a written policy. That policy allowed vendors to make eight calls per day to a consumer with an overdue account, plus two additional calls per day under certain circumstances. Calls could be made on consecutive days. There was no cap on how many days in a row this could continue.

Ten calls per day, every day. Some consumers allege they received more than 70 calls per week. The calls continued even after consumers told the bank they had the wrong number. They continued after consumers explicitly revoked consent. They continued after cease-and-desist letters.

California’s Rosenthal Act prohibits contacting consumers “with such frequency as to constitute harassment.” The statute does not set a specific number. Courts do. And a federal jury had already drawn that line in 2019 — Credit One was on notice. According to the California district attorneys, despite that verdict, the same practices continued.

The Repeat Offender Problem: What Credit One Knew After 2019

This is where it gets complicated — and damaging for Credit One. The 2019 federal jury verdict was not an allegation. It was a finding of fact. A jury concluded that Credit One’s calling practices violated the Rosenthal Act. The judgment put Credit One on formal legal notice that its conduct was unlawful under California law.

The California Debt Collection Task Force’s 2021 complaint covered conduct occurring after that verdict. The bank did not adjust its calling policy to reflect the legal reality. It continued the same practice.

That sequence — verdict, then continued identical conduct — is what the district attorneys characterized as the basis for $9 million in civil penalties rather than a simple remediation order. It is also what makes this case different from a standard first-time consumer complaint. Credit One was not an uninformed defendant.

The TCPA Explained: Why These Calls Were Illegal

The Telephone Consumer Protection Act, enacted by Congress in 1991, restricts the use of automated telephone dialing systems and prerecorded messages. Companies cannot use this technology to call a consumer’s cellphone without prior express written consent. That consent must be specific — broad account agreements generally do not satisfy the standard for marketing calls.

Consent can be revoked. Once a consumer tells the company to stop calling, any further automated call is a violation. TCPA statutory damages are $500 per negligent violation and $1,500 per willful violation. In mass calling cases involving thousands of consumers, the aggregate liability grows fast. That is why Credit One settled the federal robocall case for $14 million rather than litigate it to trial.

The Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act adds a California layer on top of federal protections. Where the federal FDCPA covers only third-party debt collectors, the Rosenthal Act covers original creditors like banks — meaning Credit One could not hide behind the excuse that a third-party vendor made the calls.

Who Qualifies for the $14 Million TCPA Settlement

The $14 million federal class action settlement covers a defined class period: consumers who received automated or prerecorded calls from Credit One Bank or its affiliated third-party call centers between 2014 and 2019. You do not need to have been a Credit One customer. Many people whose numbers were mistakenly added to automated call lists are eligible.

To file: locate the official settlement administrator website — verify it references a court-appointed administrator such as Kroll or JND Legal Administration and lists the presiding court and case name. Enter your name, current address, and the phone number that received calls. No proof of calls is required upfront. The administrator matches phone numbers against Credit One’s call records automatically.

Do not pay any fee to file a claim. Never provide your Social Security number to an unofficial site. The administrator pays you — not the other way around.

The $10.2 Million State Judgment: Who It Covers and What It Changes

The February 2026 California enforcement judgment is a civil penalty action brought by the state, not a class action. Individual California consumers do not file claims under this settlement. The $9 million in civil penalties flows to the participating district attorney’s offices for redistribution under state law.

What it changes is Credit One’s legal obligations going forward. The Stipulated Judgment requires Credit One to comply with California and federal debt collection law and to maintain internal policies ensuring compliance. Violation of those terms after the judgment creates additional legal exposure — potentially much more serious than the original penalty.

This is the fourth judgment the California Debt Collection Task Force has obtained. The task force previously won judgments against Allied Interstate, LLC in 2018, Synchrony Bank in 2021, and Capital One Bank in 2022. Credit One joins a list of financial institutions that underestimated California’s enforcement capacity.

Pending 2025 Class Actions: What Is Still Open

Three separate class action lawsuits filed in 2025 remain in early stages and have not reached settlement. Mingura v. Credit One Bank N.A. (Northern District of California), Ashford v. Credit One Bank N.A. (Middle District of Alabama), and Snyder v. Credit One Bank (Florida federal court) are all pending. Plaintiffs in these cases allege substantially similar conduct: automated calls made to consumers who had revoked consent or who had requested the calls stop.

None of these cases has been certified as a class action, and no settlements have been announced. Consumers who received harassing calls from Credit One after 2019 may be class members in these future actions, depending on how courts define the class periods.

What Plaintiffs Are Actually Going Through

Consumer comments filed publicly in connection with the 2025 class actions paint a specific picture. One consumer described receiving calls four to seven times per day after missing a single payment. She put her phone on Do Not Disturb to function. When she finally answered and cited the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the representative hung up on her.

Another consumer, Rebeca Mingura, alleges she received 578 calls in four months — averaging roughly five calls every day — despite informing Credit One she was a disabled senior citizen experiencing financial and medical hardship. Her attorney sent a cease-and-desist letter in July 2025. The calls, she alleges, continued.

These are not edge cases. They are the pattern. Credit One’s own internal policy — eight to ten calls per day, on consecutive days — produced exactly these outcomes at scale.

What Credit One Earned From These Practices

Credit One Bank specializes in credit cards for consumers with subprime or rebuilding credit histories. These customers have fewer alternatives. They are more likely to fall behind on payments and more vulnerable to aggressive collection tactics.

Credit One also faced a separate class action over $9.95 express payment fees — charges applied to customers paying their bills online through what the plaintiffs alleged was an automated system that did not qualify as the “expedited service by a live representative” that the Truth in Lending Act requires to justify a separate fee. The bank allegedly collected more than $5 million through these fees. The case, consolidated in the Southern District of New York, became part of a broader consumer rights challenge to Credit One’s fee structure.

The pattern across all these cases is consistent. A bank serving financially vulnerable consumers designed internal policies that maximized revenue and contact frequency — then resisted legal accountability until compelled to pay.

How These Cases Stacked Up Against Similar Bank Enforcement Actions

The California Debt Collection Task Force is explicit about its targets. This was the fourth judgment in a series. The task force pursued Allied Interstate, Synchrony Bank, and Capital One before Credit One. Each judgment built on the legal framework established by the prior ones.

Similar to the patterns alleged in the Verizon class action lawsuit, where a major corporation allegedly charged millions of customers through hidden or unauthorized fees across a long period, Credit One’s case illustrates how systematic corporate policies — rather than isolated mistakes — generate class-wide liability. The Amazon refund lawsuit raised comparable issues about corporate systems that denied customers their legal rights at scale, and resulted in a $309 million settlement. Credit One’s $10.2 million state penalty and $14 million federal fund represent a combined $24.2 million in resolved liability — and three more class actions are still pending.

What This Lawsuit Teaches Consumers

The Credit One Bank litigation teaches one core lesson: a federal jury verdict is not enough to change corporate behavior on its own. Credit One was found liable in 2019. The same conduct continued. It took a multi-county state task force, a five-year investigation, and a court-ordered $10.2 million penalty before Credit One’s calling practices were formally restrained by a court order.

What that means for consumers is practical. Documenting harassing calls matters. A call log showing the date, time, and caller ID — combined with a record of when you revoked consent — is evidence. It is the foundation of the claims that generated $24.2 million in resolutions against Credit One Bank.

Regulators took this seriously because consumers documented it. California’s Rosenthal Act and the federal TCPA both exist precisely because Congress and state legislators recognized that debt collection harassment is real, measurable, and harmful. Companies that design systems to push the legal boundary — eight calls a day, plus two more, consecutive days, no cap — do not get the benefit of the doubt. They get the bill.