Table of Contents
What Is the Rebeca Mingura Credit One Lawsuit?
In August 2025, a California woman named Rebeca Mingura filed a class action lawsuit against Credit One Bank, N.A., alleging relentless automated debt collection harassment.
Starting in April 2025, Mingura says Credit One began flooding her with phone calls, texts, and emails about three alleged credit card accounts. She was a disabled senior citizen already dealing with serious financial and medical hardship. She asked them to stop. They didn’t.
If you’re facing similar legal issues, understanding your rights under consumer law is critical — see our guide on Reserved Powers consumer protection laws and legal rights.
Her attorney then sent a formal cease-and-desist letter in July 2025 — a legally significant step that puts a company on clear written notice to stop all contact. According to the complaint, Credit One kept calling anyway.
By the time she filed the lawsuit, Mingura had received more than 578 calls in just four months. Many came in rapid bursts — multiple calls within minutes of each other — making it nearly impossible to use her own phone for anything else.
The lawsuit argues this pattern of conduct violated three separate laws: a federal statute, a California state law, and a California consumer protection act. If successful, the case could open the door for thousands of other consumers who experienced similar treatment to seek compensation.
Credit One Bank: Who Are They? (Not Capital One)
This is one of the most common points of confusion online — and it is important to get right.
Credit One Bank and Capital One are two completely different companies. They are not affiliated, do not share ownership, and operate entirely separately.
Here is a quick comparison:
| Feature | Credit One Bank | Capital One |
|---|---|---|
| Founded | 1984 (as First National Bank of Marin) | 1994 |
| Headquarters | Las Vegas, Nevada | McLean, Virginia |
| Focus | Subprime credit cards (credit-building) | Full-service banking and credit cards |
| Size | Single branch, app-based | One of the largest U.S. banks |
| Monthly app users | 8+ million | Tens of millions |
| Public/Private | Privately held | Publicly traded (NYSE: COF) |
Credit One Bank was originally founded in California in 1984, moved its headquarters to Las Vegas in 1998, and adopted its current brand name in 2006. It primarily targets consumers with limited or damaged credit histories — offering credit cards to people who may not qualify elsewhere.
Because the names sound so similar, many people who receive calls from Credit One assume it is Capital One. They are not the same. If you are researching this lawsuit, make sure the calls you received were from Credit One Bank, not Capital One Financial.
The Laws Behind the Rebeca Mingura Credit One Lawsuit
Three major statutes are cited in Mingura’s complaint. Here is what each one means in plain English.
Federal Law: The Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA)
The TCPA (47 U.S.C. § 227) is a federal law passed in 1991. It restricts companies from using automatic telephone dialing systems (autodialers) or prerecorded voice messages to contact consumers on their cell phones without prior express written consent.
In plain English: A company cannot use a robocall system to spam your cell phone unless you gave them specific written permission to do so. And if you revoke that permission — in writing — they must stop.
Mingura alleges that Credit One used automated dialing technology to call her hundreds of times without valid consent, and continued doing so after she clearly revoked whatever consent may have existed.
TCPA Damages Per Violation for Rebeca Mingura Credit One Lawsuit:
| Violation Type | Statutory Damages |
|---|---|
| Negligent TCPA violation | $500 per call |
| Willful or knowing TCPA violation | Up to $1,500 per call |
With 578 calls alleged, potential statutory damages for Mingura alone could range from $289,000 to $867,000 — before any class-wide claims or actual damages are factored in.
Important Legal Note: In 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court narrowed the definition of what qualifies as an “autodialer” in Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid, 592 U.S. 395. The Court ruled that a dialing system must use a random or sequential number generator to qualify. This raised the bar for TCPA plaintiffs. The Mingura case will almost certainly wrestle with this issue as it moves forward.
California State Law: The Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (RFDCPA)
California’s Rosenthal Act (Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1788–1788.33) is the state-level version of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act — but it is broader and stronger.
The key difference: The federal FDCPA applies only to third-party debt collectors (companies hired to collect someone else’s debt). California’s Rosenthal Act also covers original creditors — meaning banks like Credit One that issued the credit card in the first place.
This is significant. Under federal law alone, Credit One might argue it is an original creditor and not subject to the FDCPA. In California, that argument does not work.
Additional protection for seniors and disabled individuals: California law allows for treble damages — meaning triple the amount — when a defendant’s conduct is particularly harmful to a senior citizen or disabled person. Mingura qualifies on both counts, which makes this a potentially far more costly case for Credit One than a standard TCPA claim.
California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL) — Business & Professions Code § 17200
California’s UCL prohibits any business practice that is “unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent.” It is often used as a reinforcing claim in consumer protection lawsuits.
In this case, if the TCPA and Rosenthal Act violations are proven, the UCL essentially adds a third layer of liability under California state law — giving the court another basis for ordering the bank to change its behavior and pay damages.
Federal vs. State Law: Key Differences That Affect Your Rights
Federal and state consumer protection laws work together, not separately. California consumers have some of the strongest protections in the country. Here is how the key laws compare:
| Feature | Federal TCPA | California Rosenthal Act |
|---|---|---|
| Applies to | Any caller using autodialer or prerecorded voice | Original creditors AND third-party debt collectors |
| Who can be sued | Any business or individual | Businesses, including banks that issued the debt |
| Consent rules | Prior express written consent required | Revocation of consent must be honored |
| Damages | $500–$1,500 per violation | Up to $1,000 per case + actual damages |
| Senior or disabled protections | Very limited | Yes — treble damages available |
| Cease-and-desist enforcement | TCPA allows consent revocation | Explicitly protected; continued contact is actionable |
| Applies nationwide | Yes | California residents only |
Bottom line: If you live in California, you have more legal tools than most Americans. If you live in another state, the federal TCPA still protects you — but without the additional state-level reinforcement that California provides.
Full Case Timeline for Rebeca Mingura Credit One Lawsuit
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| April 2025 | Credit One Bank allegedly begins calling Mingura by phone, text, and email about three accounts |
| April – July 2025 | Mingura receives 578+ automated calls, many within minutes of each other |
| July 2025 | Mingura hires an attorney; attorney sends a formal cease-and-desist letter to Credit One |
| July 2025 (continued) | Calls allegedly continue even after the cease-and-desist letter is received |
| August 8, 2025 | Lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court, Northern District of California |
| October 17, 2025 | Credit One Bank files a motion to compel arbitration and stay the action |
| October 24, 2025 | Parties jointly agree to continue deadlines and reschedule the hearing |
| February 6, 2026 | Credit One Bank files a renewed motion to compel arbitration |
| February 9, 2026 | Plaintiff files a response stipulation regarding the motion |
| June 4, 2026 | Arbitration hearing scheduled (most critical upcoming date) |
As of May 2026, no settlement has been reached. No class has been certified. No payout has been approved. The case is in early procedural stages.
The $10.2 Million Judgment: A Separate Case Explained
Many people searching this topic have encountered references to a $10.2 million settlement against Credit One. Here is the truth — and why confusing the two cases could mislead you.
This $10.2 million figure does not come from the Mingura lawsuit.
In February 2026, four California county district attorneys obtained a $10.2 million civil judgment against Credit One Bank after a five-year government enforcement action. That case was brought by prosecutors — not private consumers — and also involved harassing debt collection calls made by Credit One’s third-party vendors.
The Mingura case is a separate, private class action filed by one individual consumer on behalf of others who may have been similarly affected. It has not settled and has no confirmed payout.
| Case | Filed By | Amount | Status (May 2026) |
|---|---|---|---|
| California DA enforcement action | Government prosecutors | $10.2M civil judgment | Final — entered Feb. 2026 |
| Mingura v. Credit One Bank | Private plaintiff — class action | Not yet determined | Active and pending |
| Earlier TCPA robocall settlement | Class of consumers (2014–2019 calls) | $14M settlement | Fully resolved |
If you see websites claiming the Mingura case has already settled for $10.2 million or more, that information is inaccurate based on publicly available court records as of May 2026.
Credit One’s Defense for Rebeca Mingura Credit One Lawsuit: Their Side of the Story
A balanced understanding of this case requires looking at what Credit One is arguing in its defense — because courts require evidence, and allegations are not yet proven facts.
Credit One has not publicly admitted wrongdoing. Its primary legal strategy so far has been to push the dispute out of federal court entirely through a motion to compel arbitration.
Here is what that means and why it matters to you as a consumer.
What Is Arbitration and Why Does Credit One Want It?
Most credit card agreements — including those issued by Credit One — contain a mandatory arbitration clause buried in the fine print. This clause typically states that any dispute between the cardholder and the bank must be resolved through private arbitration, not through the court system.
Arbitration is generally considered less favorable for consumers for several reasons. First, it takes place in private rather than open court, meaning there is no public record. Second, arbitrators are often hired through services that companies use repeatedly, which raises concerns about neutrality. Third, and most importantly for this case, mandatory arbitration clauses often prohibit class action lawsuits — meaning consumers cannot band together to sue as a group.
By filing its motion to compel arbitration, Credit One is essentially arguing: this dispute should never have gone to federal court, and the class action should be blocked entirely.
The June 4, 2026 hearing will determine whether Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin agrees. If the court rules in Credit One’s favor, the case could be moved to private arbitration, which would significantly limit Mingura’s ability to pursue class-wide relief.
Credit One’s Consent Defense
Credit One may also argue that Mingura or other class members consented to receive automated calls when they applied for or used their credit card accounts. Under the TCPA, a company can call your cell phone with an autodialer if you gave prior express consent.
The legal question becomes: was that consent clearly given? Was it ever validly revoked? And does the 2021 Facebook v. Duguid ruling on autodialer definitions help or hurt Credit One’s position? These are the contested legal issues that will shape the outcome.
What 578 Calls Actually Looks Like: Real-Life Impact
To put the numbers in perspective — 578 calls across roughly 90 days means an average of more than six calls every single day.
Many of those calls reportedly came in back-to-back bursts, sometimes multiple times within a single hour. For anyone, this level of interruption would be disruptive. For a disabled senior citizen managing medical appointments, medications, and daily living challenges, it was allegedly debilitating.
Mingura’s complaint describes being unable to use her own phone normally. She reportedly experienced significant emotional distress and physical harm as a direct result of the volume and persistence of the calls — even after clearly communicating her situation to the bank.
This is exactly the behavior Congress had in mind when passing the TCPA in 1991. Automated dialing systems can generate thousands of calls per day at virtually no cost to the company. Without legal guardrails, there is very little to stop a business from using that technology aggressively against the most vulnerable consumers.
Similar cases have also emerged, including the Ashcroft Capital Lawsuit and OtterSec Lawsuit, highlighting broader legal concerns.
Other Consumers Suing Credit One
The Mingura case is not isolated. Credit One has faced a pattern of lawsuits over its automated calling practices across multiple states.
Ricky Ashford v. Credit One Bank (Alabama, 2025): Filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama (Case No. 2:25-cv-00536), this lawsuit alleges that Credit One made up to 80 calls per month over four months — approximately 315 calls total. Ashford alleges the calls came from spoofed or disguised caller IDs using area codes from Alabama and Georgia to increase the likelihood he would pick up. The complaint also raises concerns about calls related to a debt that may have already been sold.
Earlier TCPA Class Action (2014–2019): Credit One previously agreed to a $14 million class action settlement resolving claims it placed robocalls to consumers without consent between 2014 and 2019. That settlement benefited anyone who received automated calls from Credit One during that period — including non-customers who never had a Credit One account.
California DA Enforcement Action (2021–2026): After five years of litigation, four California county district attorneys secured a $10.2 million civil judgment against Credit One in February 2026 over harassing debt collection calls made through third-party vendors.
The repeated nature of these legal actions across multiple years and jurisdictions suggests a systemic challenge in how Credit One’s automated calling infrastructure is managed and audited.
State-by-State: How Consumer Protections Vary
The TCPA is a federal law and applies in every state. But many states have added their own consumer protection layers on top of it. Here is how the major states compare.
California
California offers the strongest protections in the country for consumers facing debt collection harassment. The Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act covers original creditors, not just collectors. Treble damages are available for violations targeting senior citizens or disabled individuals. The Unfair Competition Law provides a third avenue for legal relief. California courts are also among the most active in TCPA litigation nationwide.
Texas
Texas follows the federal FDCPA and TCPA. The Texas Debt Collection Act (Tex. Fin. Code §§ 392.001–392.404) separately prohibits harassing and oppressive debt collection conduct and allows consumers to seek actual damages, injunctive relief, and attorney’s fees. However, Texas does not have a law as broad as California’s Rosenthal Act that also covers original creditors.
New York
New York provides strong consumer protections through the state’s General Business Law § 349 (which prohibits deceptive acts and practices) and the New York City Administrative Code for city residents. The FDCPA applies statewide. New York courts have a history of being receptive to TCPA claims, particularly in cases involving automated debt collection calls.
Florida
Florida has its own Consumer Collection Practices Act (FCCPA), which mirrors the federal FDCPA but applies to original creditors as well — similar in scope to California’s approach, though without the treble damages provision for seniors. Florida also has a large retiree population and has historically seen significant TCPA litigation activity.
Illinois
Illinois consumers are protected by the federal TCPA and FDCPA, as well as the Illinois Collection Agency Act. Illinois also has a broad Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act that can be used to support debt harassment claims alongside federal statutes.
Statute of Limitations: Do Not Wait Too Long
This is critical information that most articles on this topic overlook entirely.
If you believe you have been harassed by Credit One or any other debt collector using automated calls, there are strict legal deadlines that determine whether you can still file a claim.
| Law | Statute of Limitations | What the Clock Starts On |
|---|---|---|
| TCPA (federal) | 4 years | Date of each individual call |
| FDCPA (federal) | 1 year | Date of the violation |
| California Rosenthal Act | 1 year | Date of the violation |
| California UCL | 4 years | Date the unfair practice occurred |
If you received harassing robocalls from Credit One in 2022 or later, you may still be within the TCPA window. However, for the Rosenthal Act and FDCPA, if the calls happened more than one year ago, you may have already lost the right to sue under those specific statutes.
Do not assume it is too late without consulting a consumer rights attorney. The clock on each individual call violation can restart, and combined claims under multiple statutes can extend your options.
Step-by-Step: What To Do If You’re Being Harassed
Whether or not you are part of the Mingura case, here is a clear action plan if you are receiving repeated unwanted calls from Credit One or any debt collector.
Step 1 — Document Everything Immediately
Start a call log today. Write down every call: date, time, phone number that appeared on your caller ID, what was said, and whether it sounded automated or like a live person. Save every voicemail. Screenshot every text message. This record becomes your evidence.
Step 2 — Do Not Ignore It or Just Hang Up
Verbal requests to stop calling are easy to dismiss and hard to prove later. You need a paper trail from the very beginning.
Step 3 — Send a Written Cease-and-Desist Letter
This is the most important step you can take on your own. A written cease-and-desist formally puts the company on notice that you are withdrawing consent and demanding all communication stop. Send it via certified mail with return receipt requested so you have proof it was received.
Step 4 — Review Your Credit Card Agreement
Look for an arbitration clause. If one exists, it may affect your legal options. A consumer attorney can help you evaluate whether the clause is enforceable in your specific situation.
Step 5 — File Complaints With Regulators
You can file complaints at no cost with:
- Consumer Financial Protection Bureau: consumerfinance.gov/complaint
- Federal Trade Commission: reportfraud.ftc.gov
- Your State Attorney General’s Office
These complaints create an official record and can support future legal action.
Step 6 — Consult a Consumer Rights Attorney
Many consumer protection attorneys work on a contingency fee basis — meaning you pay nothing unless you win. Under both the TCPA and the FDCPA, if you prevail in court, the company may be required to pay your attorney’s fees directly. This makes legal help accessible even for people with limited financial resources. Most initial consultations are free.
Free Cease-and-Desist Letter Template
You can adapt the following template and send it via certified mail with return receipt to Credit One Bank or any debt collector harassing you. Keep a copy for your records.
[Your Full Name] [Your Address] [City, State, ZIP] [Date]
Credit One Bank, N.A. P.O. Box 98873 Las Vegas, NV 89193
Re: Formal Demand to Cease All Communications — Account Number [XXXX] (if known)
To Whom It May Concern,
I am writing to formally demand that Credit One Bank, N.A., its agents, affiliates, and any third-party vendors acting on its behalf, immediately cease all communications with me regarding the above-referenced account or any other matter.
This letter serves as written revocation of any prior express consent you may claim to have for contacting me via automated telephone dialing systems, prerecorded messages, text messages, or any other automated communication method, pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227.
Any further contact in violation of this demand may subject your company to statutory damages of $500 to $1,500 per violation under the TCPA, as well as additional claims under applicable state law.
Please confirm receipt of this letter and ensure that all communications to me stop immediately.
Sincerely, [Your Signature] [Your Printed Name] [Your Phone Number] [Your Email Address]
Note: This template is provided for general informational purposes. For the strongest protection, have a licensed consumer rights attorney review or send this letter on your behalf.
FAQ for Rebeca Mingura Credit One lawsuit settled
Is the Rebeca Mingura Credit One lawsuit settled?
No. As of May 2026, the case (No. 4:25-cv-06712) remains fully active in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. No settlement has been reached, no class has been certified, and no payout has been approved. A key arbitration hearing is scheduled for June 4, 2026.
Is Credit One Bank the same as Capital One?
No. They are two completely separate and unaffiliated companies. Credit One Bank is a privately held subprime credit card issuer headquartered in Las Vegas, Nevada. Capital One is a publicly traded full-service bank headquartered in McLean, Virginia. They share no ownership, no corporate relationship, and no legal liability for each other’s actions.
How many calls from a debt collector is considered harassment?
There is no exact number defined in federal law, but courts and regulators look at the frequency, timing, and intent of calls. Receiving multiple calls per day, calls within minutes of each other, or calls that continue after a written request to stop are all strong indicators of harassment under the TCPA and FDCPA. Mingura alleged 578 calls in four months — courts have found far fewer calls sufficient to constitute harassment in past TCPA cases.
Can I join the Mingura v. Credit One class action?
Not yet. The lawsuit has not been certified as a class action. If and when the court certifies a class, consumers who received similar automated calls from Credit One will be notified with instructions on how to participate or opt out. If you believe you qualify, document your experience now and consider consulting a consumer rights attorney.
What happens if a debt collector violates the TCPA?
Under the TCPA, each individual call made in violation of the law can result in statutory damages of $500 for negligent violations or up to $1,500 for willful violations. You do not have to prove actual financial harm — the law provides these set damages per call. You also have the right to seek injunctive relief to stop the calls permanently.
Can Credit One force this case into arbitration?
Credit One has filed motions to compel arbitration, arguing that Mingura agreed to resolve disputes through private arbitration rather than in federal court. This is a common tactic used by financial institutions to block class action lawsuits. The court will evaluate whether the arbitration clause is valid and enforceable in this context. The outcome of the June 4, 2026 hearing will be decisive.
Does the TCPA apply even if I actually owe the debt?
Yes. Owing a debt does not eliminate your rights under the TCPA. Even if you owe money to Credit One, the company is still legally prohibited from using automated calling systems to harass you, calling you multiple times per day, or continuing to call after you have revoked consent in writing. Your debt status and your right to be free from automated harassment are separate legal questions.
What is the statute of limitations for a TCPA lawsuit?
You have four years from the date of each individual TCPA violation to file a lawsuit. For state laws like California’s Rosenthal Act and the federal FDCPA, the deadline is one year. Do not assume it is too late — consult a consumer attorney to evaluate your specific timeline.
What should I do right now if Credit One is still calling me?
Start documenting every call immediately with date, time, and phone number. Send a written cease-and-desist letter via certified mail. File a complaint with the CFPB at consumerfinance.gov/complaint. Then consult a consumer rights attorney — most offer free consultations and work on contingency, meaning you pay nothing out of pocket unless you win.
Published on ReservedPowers.com | Last Updated: May 5, 2026 This article on Rebeca Mingura Credit One Lawsuit is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always consult a licensed attorney for guidance specific to your situation.
