Rebeca Mingura Credit One Lawsuit: Full 2026 Guide
If you have been searching for information about the Rebeca Mingura Credit One lawsuit, you are probably looking for clear, honest answers, not dense legal jargon. Maybe you are dealing with similar harassment from a debt collector right now. Maybe you want to know if you qualify to join a class action. Or maybe you simply want to understand what this case is about.
Who Is Rebeca Mingura and Why Did She Sue Credit One Bank?
Rebeca Mingura is a resident of Alameda, California. She is a disabled senior citizen who, in 2025, found herself on the receiving end of what she describes as relentless, overwhelming phone harassment from Credit One Bank.
According to the lawsuit, Credit One Bank began contacting Mingura in April 2025 via phone, text, and email to collect on debts she allegedly owed across three separate accounts. She says she told the bank about her financial difficulties and her medical situation. She explained she was a disabled senior who simply could not pay at that time.
The bank reportedly did not stop.
By the time her attorney sent a formal cease-and-desist letter in July 2025, Mingura alleged she had already received more than 578 calls in just four months. That works out to roughly five calls every single day. Some calls came within minutes of each other. The cease-and-desist letter did not stop them either. According to the complaint, Credit One Bank continued calling even after receiving that letter.
On August 8, 2025, Rebeca Mingura filed a class action lawsuit against Credit One Bank N.A. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The case is officially known as Mingura v. Credit One Bank N.A., Case No. 4:25-cv-06712.
What Laws Does the Lawsuit Allege Were Violated?
This is where the case gets specific. Mingura’s lawsuit does not rest on one legal claim. It rests on three distinct federal and state consumer protection laws.
The Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA)
The TCPA is a federal law passed by Congress in 1991. It prohibits companies from using automated telephone dialing systems (robocall technology) to contact consumers on their cell phones without prior express consent. If a consumer revokes that consent, the company must stop.
The law has teeth. Each negligent violation carries a statutory penalty of $500. Each willful violation can result in damages of $1,500 per call. When you multiply that by 578 calls, the potential financial exposure becomes significant very quickly.
Mingura alleges Credit One Bank used automated dialing systems to contact her cell phone without valid consent, and continued doing so even after she revoked any consent that may have existed.
The Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (RFDCPA)
California has its own version of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Rosenthal Act, codified at California Civil Code sections 1788 and beyond, applies to original creditors like banks — not just third-party debt collectors. This is important because it closes a gap in federal law.
The RFDCPA prohibits harassment, oppression, and abusive debt collection conduct. Making dozens of calls per week to a disabled senior citizen who has already asked you to stop fits squarely within what California law considers abusive.
Mingura seeks actual damages and statutory damages under this law, plus treble damages, meaning the court could multiply her damages by three, specifically because California law provides enhanced protections for senior citizens.
California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL)
California Business and Professions Code section 17200 allows consumers and regulators to pursue companies whose business practices are deemed unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent. This law gives plaintiffs an additional avenue to seek injunctive relief, essentially asking the court to order Credit One Bank to stop the conduct entirely, not just pay money.
A Breakdown of the Key Allegations
| Allegation | Details |
|---|---|
| Volume of calls | More than 578 calls between April and July 2025 |
| Duration | Approximately four months of contact |
| Method | Phone calls, texts, and emails |
| Number of accounts | Three separate Credit One Bank accounts |
| Cease-and-desist sent | July 2025, by Mingura’s attorney |
| Calls after cease-and-desist | Alleged to have continued |
| Plaintiff’s status | Disabled senior citizen with financial and medical hardships |
| Laws allegedly violated | TCPA, RFDCPA, California UCL |
| Court filed | U.S. District Court, Northern District of California |
| Case number | 4:25-cv-06712 |
| Date filed | August 8, 2025 |
What Damages Is Mingura Seeking?
The lawsuit requests several forms of relief, and it is worth understanding what each one means.
Statutory damages under the TCPA are fixed by federal law. Mingura is seeking $500 for each negligent violation and $1,500 for each call that is found to have been willful. If Credit One Bank knew it was not supposed to call and called anyway, especially after receiving a cease-and-desist letter, those calls could be categorized as willful.
Under the RFDCPA, she is seeking actual damages, which could include compensation for emotional distress, physical harm, and any financial losses caused by the harassment. California law also allows the court to award treble damages when the victim is a senior citizen, which could dramatically increase the final amount.
The lawsuit also asks the court for injunctive relief. This means Mingura wants a court order forcing Credit One Bank to change its debt collection practices going forward, not just pay for past harm.
Is This the Same as the $10.2 Million Credit One Settlement?
No, and this confusion is one of the most important things to clear up.
In February 2026, four California district attorneys announced a $10.2 million judgment against Credit One Bank. That case was a government enforcement action that had been in litigation for nearly five years. It was brought by state prosecutors, not individual consumers. The judgment included $9 million in civil penalties and $1.2 million to cover investigative costs.
The Mingura lawsuit is a completely separate legal action. It was filed by an individual consumer, not by the government. As of early 2026, no settlement has been reached in the Mingura case. The case is still pending in federal court.
There is also a widely circulated claim online about a $14 million TCPA class action settlement against Credit One Bank. Legal researchers who searched federal court dockets found no verified court record or case number to support that claim. It appears to be misinformation that spread from one website to many others. Do not file a claim based on that figure, it has not been confirmed as a real, active settlement.
Here is a quick reference to keep the lawsuits straight:
| Case | Type | Status | Amount |
|---|---|---|---|
| California DA enforcement action | Government enforcement | Settled February 2026 | $10.2 million |
| Mingura v. Credit One Bank (4:25-cv-06712) | Private class action | Pending as of 2026 | Not settled |
| Express payment fee class action | Private class action | Final approval late 2025 | Separate settlement |
| $14M TCPA settlement (widely reported) | Unverified | No court record found | Not confirmed |
What Makes This Case Different From Typical Debt Collection Lawsuits
Most TCPA cases involve a consumer who gets a handful of robocalls and decides to take legal action. This case has a few elements that make it stand out.
The plaintiff is a disabled senior citizen. California law specifically provides enhanced damages for senior victims of financial and consumer abuse. That changes the potential exposure for Credit One Bank significantly.
The volume of calls is extreme. 578 calls in four months is not an occasional reminder, it is a pattern of conduct that, if proven, strongly supports claims of willful harassment.
The calls allegedly continued after a formal cease-and-desist letter from a licensed attorney. Under TCPA case law, continuing to call after a clear, written revocation of consent from legal counsel is widely considered willful conduct. That distinction matters enormously for the per-call damage calculation.
Credit One Bank also has a documented history. The $10.2 million California judgment in 2026 was actually the second time a court found Credit One Bank liable for violating the Rosenthal Act. A federal jury had found the bank liable for the same type of conduct in 2019. Despite that, the conduct allegedly continued, a pattern that prosecutors and plaintiffs’ attorneys often use to argue that violations were not accidental.
How Does This Relate to a Broader Pattern at Credit One Bank?
The Mingura lawsuit does not exist in a vacuum. Credit One Bank has faced legal scrutiny from multiple directions in recent years.
California’s Debt Collection Task Force has now secured four judgments against financial institutions for phone-related harassment. Allied Interstate settled for $9 million in 2018. Synchrony Bank settled for $3.5 million in 2021. Capital One Bank settled for $2 million in 2022. Credit One Bank’s $10.2 million judgment in 2026 is the largest of the four.
There is also a separate class action related to so-called express payment fees. Two consumers alleged that Credit One Bank charged them a $9.95 fee each time they made an “express payment” online, even though the payments were processed by an automated system rather than a live representative. That settlement reached final approval in late 2025, and eligible cardholders may have already received automatic account credits or checks.
The combination of these cases paints a picture of a company that has faced repeated, credible legal challenges over its consumer treatment practices.
What Should You Do If Credit One Bank Is Calling You Repeatedly?
If you are experiencing something similar to what Mingura described, there are concrete steps you can take right now.
Document everything. Write down the date, time, and phone number of every call you receive. Save voicemails. Keep copies of any text messages or emails. Courts rely heavily on documented evidence in TCPA cases, and call logs that are assembled later from memory are far less credible than records kept in real time.
Send a written cease-and-desist request. A verbal request to stop calling is less powerful than a written one. Send a written notice via certified mail so you have proof of delivery. If you can do so through a licensed attorney, even better. Legal counsel’s cease-and-desist carries additional weight and, if ignored, helps build a case for willful violations.
Consult a consumer protection attorney. Many attorneys who handle TCPA cases work on a contingency fee basis, meaning you pay nothing upfront. They receive a portion of any settlement or judgment. An attorney can evaluate your specific situation, the number of calls, whether consent was given or revoked, and what your realistic legal options are.
Contact relevant regulators. You can file a complaint with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and with your state’s attorney general. These complaints help build a public record and can attract regulatory attention, as happened with the Credit One Bank enforcement action brought by California district attorneys.
Can You Join the Mingura Class Action Right Now?
As of early 2026, the answer is no, not yet.
The Mingura case has not been certified as a class action by the court. Class certification is a legal process in which the judge evaluates whether common questions of law and fact exist among a large enough group of people to justify handling the claims together rather than individually.
If the case does get certified and eventually reaches a settlement, potential class members would typically be notified by mail or email and given the opportunity to file a claim. No claims process is currently open.
There is also a pending question about arbitration. Credit One Bank’s credit card agreements typically contain arbitration clauses, which can require disputes to be resolved privately rather than in court. Whether that clause applies here and whether it would prevent class action treatment is one of the key legal issues the court will need to decide.
If you want to stay informed, you can monitor the official docket through the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California’s website, or work with an attorney who follows this case.
Why Cases Like This Matter Beyond the Courtroom
The Rebeca Mingura Credit One lawsuit matters for reasons that go beyond one plaintiff and one bank.
Millions of Americans carry Credit One Bank accounts. The bank describes itself as one of the leading subprime credit card issuers in the country and reports more than eight million active monthly users on its mobile app. When a lawsuit of this nature becomes public, it raises awareness among all of those consumers about their rights.
Many people receiving aggressive debt collection calls do not know that the TCPA exists. They do not know that calling your cell phone with a robocaller without consent may be illegal. They do not know that each call could carry a statutory penalty. Cases like this one help educate the public, simply by existing and becoming searchable.
There is also a systemic argument worth making. Automated debt collection systems can be set to dial thousands of numbers per day. The humans at those companies may not be personally reviewing every call. When systems operate without adequate human oversight, vulnerable people, elderly consumers, disabled individuals, those already in financial crisis, can end up caught in an automated loop with no easy way out. Litigation creates consequences that give companies a financial reason to build better controls.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the Rebeca Mingura Credit One lawsuit about?
The lawsuit alleges that Credit One Bank placed more than 578 automated, harassing phone calls to Mingura’s cell phone between April and July 2025, even after she informed the bank of her status as a disabled senior citizen and even after her attorney sent a formal cease-and-desist letter. The complaint alleges violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and California’s Unfair Competition Law. Mingura seeks statutory damages for each call, treble damages due to her senior citizen status under California law, and injunctive relief to stop the conduct.
Is there a settlement in the Mingura v. Credit One Bank case?
As of early 2026, there is no settlement in the Mingura case. The case was still pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California as of that time. The $10.2 million settlement that was finalized in February 2026 is a separate government enforcement action brought by California district attorneys. The two cases are unrelated. Anyone claiming you can file for money from the Mingura case right now should be treated with skepticism.
How many calls is 578 calls in four months?
Spread across roughly 120 days, from April to July 2025, 578 calls averages out to nearly five calls per day, every single day. The complaint also notes that many calls came within minutes of each other, which suggests the use of automated dialing technology that can cycle through numbers repeatedly without human judgment in between. For a disabled senior citizen dealing with medical difficulties, that volume of contact is alleged to have caused real emotional and physical harm.
What is the TCPA and how does it protect you?
The Telephone Consumer Protection Act is a federal law that restricts how companies can contact consumers by phone. It prohibits automated calls and texts to cell phones unless the consumer has given prior express consent. It also requires companies to stop contacting you once you revoke that consent. Violations can result in damages of $500 per call for negligent violations and up to $1,500 per call for willful violations. Because the law attaches penalties to individual calls, cases involving hundreds of calls can escalate into very large damage figures quickly.
Does the Credit One Bank $10.2 million settlement apply to individual consumers?
Generally, no. That settlement was a government enforcement action brought by California district attorneys, not a traditional class action lawsuit. It primarily consists of civil penalties paid to the state and requirements for Credit One Bank to improve its debt collection compliance procedures. Individual consumers do not receive direct payments from that settlement. However, the separate express payment fee class action that reached final approval in late 2025 did involve direct consumer compensation, and eligible cardholders may have already received account credits or checks.
What should you do if a debt collector is calling you dozens of times per week?
Start by documenting every call with dates, times, and phone numbers, do it in real time, not from memory later. Send a written cease-and-desist notice by certified mail so you have proof of delivery. If the calls continue, consult a consumer protection attorney, many of whom handle TCPA cases with no upfront fee. You can also file complaints with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and your state attorney general. If the calls were made using an automated dialing system to your cell phone, and you either never gave consent or you revoked it, you may have a viable legal claim regardless of whether you owe the underlying debt.