In the digital age, the line between persistent debt collection and systemic harassment has become a central focus for federal and state courts. The Rebeca Mingura Credit One lawsui, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in August 2025, has emerged as a landmark case representing the struggle of individual consumers against massive financial institutions.
With allegations involving hundreds of automated calls to a disabled senior citizen, the Rebeca Mingura Credit One lawsuit serves as a critical test of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (RFDCPA). As of February 2026, the case is entering a pivotal phase that could redefine how banks utilize automated technology to contact debtors.
The Anatomy of the Allegations
The core of the Rebeca Mingura Credit One lawsuit (Case No. 3:25-cv-06712) rests on the sheer volume and nature of communication initiated by Credit One Bank, N.A. According to court filings, Mingura—a senior citizen living with disabilities—was subjected to a relentless campaign to collect on alleged debts across three separate accounts.
Key details of the alleged conduct include:
-
Excessive Call Volume: The plaintiff alleges she received over 578 calls in a short four-month window (April to July 2025).
-
Harassment Despite Revocation: Mingura claims she explicitly revoked her consent for the bank to contact her via her cellular phone and informed them of her financial and medical hardships. Despite this, the calls allegedly continued at a rate of multiple times per day.
-
Psychological Impact: The lawsuit argues that the “sequential calling” tactics—where multiple calls are placed within minutes—caused significant emotional distress and physical exhaustion for the vulnerable plaintiff.
Legal Pillars: TCPA and California’s Rosenthal Act
The legal strategy behind the Rebeca Mingura Credit One lawsuit is designed to hold the bank accountable through both federal and state statutes.
-
The Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA): This federal law prohibits the use of an “automatic telephone dialing system” (ATDS) or artificial/prerecorded voices without prior express consent. Since Mingura alleges she revoked her consent, each subsequent call could incur statutory damages of $500 to $1,500.
-
The Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (RFDCPA): This California state law offers even broader protections than federal law, specifically prohibiting “harassing, oppressive, or abusive” behavior. Under California law, senior citizens and disabled individuals may be entitled to enhanced damages when a court finds a “pattern and practice” of predatory behavior.
Procedural Timeline: Where the Case Stands (February 2026)
| Date | Legal Development |
| August 8, 2025 | Initial Complaint filed in the Northern District of California. |
| August 25, 2025 | Case assigned to Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín. |
| February 6, 2026 | Credit One Bank filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration, a common tactic to move cases from public court to private, confidential proceedings. |
| June 4, 2026 | Current scheduled date for the hearing on the Motion to Compel Arbitration. |
The current focus of the Rebeca Mingura Credit One lawsuit is whether the case will remain in the public court system or be forced into private arbitration. This is a high-stakes moment: public litigation allows for “discovery,” which could force the bank to reveal internal policies regarding their automated dialing algorithms.
Broader Context: A $10.2 Million Precedent
The momentum of the Rebeca Mingura Credit One lawsuit is bolstered by recent state-level actions. In February 2026, Credit One Bank agreed to a $10.2 million settlement with the California Debt Collection Task Force. This settlement addressed statewide allegations of “unreasonably frequent” calls.
While the $10.2 million settlement is a separate civil action, the findings in that case—which criticized the bank for allowing up to 10 calls per day per account—provide a powerful backdrop for Mingura’s individual claims. It establishes a documented history of the bank’s collection department failing to self-regulate their automated systems.
Conclusion: The Stakes for Consumer Privacy
The Rebeca Mingura Credit One lawsuit is more than just a dispute over a debt; it is a fight for the “right to be left alone.” For Mingura, the phone became a source of constant anxiety, illustrating the human cost of automated corporate outreach.
As the legal community looks toward the June 2026 hearing, the outcome will signal whether big banks can continue to hide behind “arbitration clauses” or if they will be held publicly accountable for the actions of their automated dialing systems. In 2026, the case stands as a warning: digital efficiency must never come at the expense of human dignity.