Credit One Bank Pays $10.2M Over 'Harassing' Debt Collection Calls

LAS VEGAS, NV – February 20, 2026 – Credit One Bank has agreed to a $10.2 million settlement to resolve a civil lawsuit brought by a coalition of California District Attorneys over allegations of illegal and harassing debt collection practices. The settlement comes despite the bank's public denial of any wrongdoing.

In a press release, the Las Vegas-based financial services company stated it “expressly denies that it engaged in any wrongdoing or violation of law” and entered into the agreement “solely to avoid the cost and inconvenience of further litigation.” The settlement includes $9 million in civil penalties and $1.2 million to cover the costs of the investigation.

The judgment, entered in Riverside County Superior Court on February 19, concludes a significant investigation into the company's methods for collecting consumer debt. The case highlights a growing tension between rapidly expanding financial firms and the state-level regulators tasked with protecting consumers.

California's Crackdown on Collection Tactics

The action against Credit One Bank is not an isolated incident but the latest in a series of major enforcement actions by the California Debt Collection Task Force. This statewide team, comprising District Attorneys from Santa Clara, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Riverside counties, has been actively targeting what it deems unfair collection practices across the financial industry.

This settlement marks the fourth major judgment secured by the task force. Previous multi-million-dollar settlements for similar alleged violations include agreements with:
* Capital One (2022)
* Synchrony Bank (2021)
* Allied Interstate, LLC (2018)

This pattern suggests a concerted effort by California authorities to enforce the state's robust consumer protection laws, particularly the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (RFDCPA). Unlike the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), California's Rosenthal Act extends its rules to original creditors, meaning companies like Credit One and Capital One are held to the same standards as third-party collection agencies when collecting their own debts. This broader scope gives California regulators significant leverage to pursue legal action against major financial institutions.

Behind the Allegations

While Credit One’s press release asserted the company “has always complied with the requirements of California's law,” the civil complaint filed by the District Attorneys painted a starkly different picture. The lawsuit alleged that Credit One, both directly and through its third-party vendors, engaged in making “unreasonably frequent and harassing calls” to collect on overdue credit card accounts.

According to the complaint, the bank’s policies permitted collectors to make up to eight calls per day to a single consumer, with the potential for two additional calls under certain circumstances. These calls were allegedly made on consecutive days. Furthermore, the lawsuit claimed that Credit One and its agents persisted in calling individuals even after they had explicitly requested the calls to stop, a direct violation of consumer rights under the RFDCPA. The investigation also found instances of calls being made to incorrect numbers, harassing unrelated parties.

These practices were alleged to violate not only the Rosenthal Act but also California's Unfair Competition Law and the state's constitutional right to privacy. Notably, this was not the first time the bank's call practices have faced legal challenges; a federal jury found Credit One liable for violating the Rosenthal Act in a separate 2019 case, yet the state's investigation found that similar practices allegedly continued.

Growth, Scrutiny, and the Cost of Business

Credit One Bank has positioned itself as one of the “fastest-growing credit card issuers in the U.S.,” specializing in products for consumers with limited or poor credit history. This rapid expansion into the subprime market, which serves a financially vulnerable population, has been accompanied by intense regulatory scrutiny and a pattern of consumer complaints.

Beyond the District Attorneys' lawsuit, the bank faces other legal and reputational challenges. The Better Business Bureau (BBB) maintains an active alert on its profile for Credit One due to a “pattern of complaints” from consumers. These complaints often cite issues with hidden fees, confusing payment processing, and aggressive collection tactics.

In a separate matter, a class-action lawsuit, Mingura v. Credit One Bank, filed in August 2025, makes similar allegations of harassing phone calls in violation of state and federal law. One plaintiff in that case claimed to have received 578 calls from the bank over a four-month period. Another proposed class-action settlement involving the bank addresses claims of misleading practices related to unauthorized interest rate hikes and hidden fees, potentially providing compensation to thousands of cardholders.

For Credit One, the $10.2 million payment may represent a calculated business decision—the “cost and inconvenience” of a public trial, prolonged discovery, and the potential for greater damages could far exceed the settlement amount. As part of the judgment, the bank is now mandated to implement new policies and procedures to prevent harassing collection calls and ensure full compliance with California law, a change that will be closely monitored by consumer advocates and regulators alike.