The Rebeca Mingura Credit One lawsuit centers on claims that Credit One Bank repeatedly called a borrower about a debt, allegedly hundreds of times within a few months. The case highlights how U.S. consumer protection laws limit how often companies can contact people about debts.Â
Mingura claims she received more than 500 calls, including calls that continued even after her lawyer asked the bank to stop contacting her directly. The lawsuit raises questions about debt collection practices, consumer rights, and possible penalties if those rules were violated.
Key Takeaways
- The Rebeca Mingura Credit One lawsuit focuses on alleged excessive debt collection calls.
- Mingura claims she received over 578 calls within about four months.
- U.S. consumer laws limit repeated or automated calls made without permission.
- Violations may lead to penalties of $500 to $1,500 per call, depending on the circumstances.
- Credit One previously settled a $10.2 million case in California over similar allegations about collection calls.
- The Mingura lawsuit highlights the importance of consumer protection rules in debt collection practices.
Credit One Bank in Simple Terms
Credit One Bank is a U.S. credit card issuer that mainly serves people with low credit scores or limited credit history. Many customers use its cards to build or rebuild their credit profile.
The bank started operations in 1984, although it used a different name at the beginning. The Credit One brand was introduced later, in 2006.
In recent years, the company has reported strong financial results. For example:
- Around $473.6 million in profit during 2024
- Roughly $411.5 million in profit during the first nine months of 2025
Because of its focus on credit-building cards, the bank has a large customer base across the United States.
Laws That Limit Debt Collection Calls
Debt collectors and financial institutions cannot contact people without limits. Several U.S. laws regulate how companies communicate with borrowers.
In general, these rules aim to prevent harassment or abusive contact. Common restrictions include:
- Repeated or excessive phone calls meant to pressure someone
- Calls that use threatening, abusive, or insulting language
- Automated dialing systems used without proper permission
- Continuing direct contact when a consumer has asked communication to stop or go through a lawyer
If these rules are violated, companies may face financial penalties.
Possible fines under federal law can include:
- $500 per violating call for unintentional violations
- Up to $1,500 per call if the violation is considered deliberate
Also read about: Nissan Class Action Lawsuit Engine Defect
Earlier California Case Against Credit One
Before Mingura’s lawsuit, Credit One Bank had already faced legal scrutiny over its collection calls.
In March 2021, district attorneys from several California counties, including Los Angeles, Riverside, Santa Clara, and San Diego, filed a lawsuit against the bank. The case alleged that some borrowers were contacted far more often than allowed.
According to the claims in that case:
- One borrower reportedly received about 550 calls within a few months
- Another borrower allegedly received around 150 calls in four months
After several years of legal proceedings, the case ended in a settlement. Credit One agreed to pay $10.2 million, which included:
- $9 million in penalties
- $1.2 million to cover investigation costs
The bank did not admit wrongdoing but agreed to make changes to its collection practices.
What Rebeca Mingura Claims in Her Lawsuit
Rebeca Mingura filed her lawsuit in August 2025 in federal court in Northern California.
She claims that Credit One contacted her excessively about a debt. According to the complaint, she received more than 578 phone calls in roughly four months.
Mingura also states that the calls continued after her lawyer sent a formal request asking the bank to stop contacting her directly.
If the court determines that automated calling systems were used without consent, federal consumer protection laws may apply.
Because the law allows penalties for each violating call, the potential financial consequences could become significant depending on how the court evaluates the evidence.
However, it is important to note that the maximum penalties allowed by law do not automatically mean that the same amount will be awarded in a case.
Also read about: EPA Grant Termination Lawsuit Dismissed
Why This Case Matters for Consumers
Cases like the Mingura lawsuit highlight how consumer protection laws work in real situations.
Debt collection is legal, but companies must follow rules designed to prevent harassment. When borrowers believe those rules were broken, they can challenge the practices through legal action.
The case also shows that even large financial institutions may face investigations or lawsuits when their collection methods are questioned.
For consumers, the broader lesson is simple: there are legal limits on how often and how aggressively companies can contact someone about a debt.
