Credit One Bank Repeatedly Called Borrowers Despite Requests to Stop, Lawsuit Says

Case Overview: The lawsuit alleges Credit One Bank placed hundreds of unwanted automated debt collection calls to consumers after they asked the company to stop.

Consumers Affected: Credit One customers who continued receiving calls despite revoking contact permission.

Court: U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California

A California woman is taking Credit One Bank to court, saying the company would not stop calling her about overdue balances even after she asked them to. The lawsuit claims the bank’s collection practices went too far, crossing into harassment and breaking multiple consumer protection laws.

Filed in California federal court, the complaint accuses Credit One of using automated dialing systems to make hundreds of calls over a four-month period. The plaintiff, Rebeca Mingura, says she was left anxious and overwhelmed after the constant contact.

Nearly 600 Calls Allegedly Placed in Four Months

According to the filing, Credit One Bank began contacting Mingura in April 2025 about debts tied to three accounts. She says the calls came at all hours, often multiple times per day, and that she continued to receive messages even after asking the bank to stop.

By July 2025, Mingura claims she had received more than 578 calls, sometimes just minutes apart. She says the volume of contact made it difficult to use her phone and disrupted her daily life.

Mingura told the company she was a disabled senior citizen dealing with medical and financial challenges, according to the complaint. She says she eventually hired a lawyer, who sent Credit One a cease-and-desist letter demanding that the bank stop all communication. Despite that notice, the calls allegedly continued.

Lawsuit Cites Federal and State Law Violations

Mingura’s lawsuit argues that Credit One’s repeated use of automated calling systems violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). The federal law prohibits companies from placing autodialed or prerecorded calls without prior consent and requires businesses to honor requests to end communication.

The complaint also references California’s Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (RFDCPA), which bans abusive or harassing behavior from debt collectors, and the state’s Unfair Competition Law, which prohibits unlawful or deceptive business conduct.

According to the lawsuit, the repeated calls caused emotional distress, anxiety, and physical discomfort. The plaintiff’s attorneys argue that Credit One’s actions were deliberate and continued long after it became aware of her condition and financial hardship.

Repeated Calls Described as Harassment

Court documents describe the bank’s communication as “harassment disguised as debt collection.” The lawsuit claims Credit One used automated software that enabled the company to make large numbers of calls quickly, leaving consumers like Mingura with no way to stop them.

The constant interruptions allegedly made Mingura fearful of answering her phone. The lawsuit says the calls continued even after Credit One confirmed receipt of her attorney’s letter, showing a disregard for both consumer privacy and compliance obligations.

Growing Attention on Aggressive Robocall Practices

The Telephone Consumer Protection Act, passed in 1991, was designed to limit the use of automated dialing systems, prerecorded messages, and text solicitations. It also restricts the hours during which companies can call consumers and requires that contact stop upon request.

Recent years have seen an increase in lawsuits against banks, lenders, and financial service providers for excessive or unwanted calls. 

Back in September 2024, a student loan borrower accused Navient Solutions and its agents of violating her privacy and putting her job at risk by repeatedly calling her at work despite being asked not to.

The complaint alleges the company left automated voicemails and continued contact after requests to stop, in violation of both state and federal law.

The proposed lawsuit against Navient claims the company’s collection tactics mirror the same types of unwanted calls described in the Credit One case, adding to growing legal pressure on lenders accused of using aggressive phone outreach to collect debts.

In the Credit One Bank robocalls lawsuit, Mingura is asking the court to order the bank to stop using automated systems to contact customers who have withdrawn consent.

She is suing for statutory damages of $500 per negligent violation of the TCPA and $1,500 per willful violation, in addition to compensation under the RFDCPA.

The lawsuit aims to establish a class of Credit One customers who experienced similar repeated calls despite revoking consent.

Case Details

• Lawsuit: Mingura v. Credit One Bank N.A.
• Case Number: 4:25-cv-06712
• Court: U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California

Plaintiffs' Attorney:

• David McGlothlin and Pamela E. Prescott (Kazerouni Law Group APC)

Have you ever received unwanted collection calls from a lender? Tell us about your experience in the comments below.