Credit One Faces $14M Robocall Settlement Over Alleged Illegal Calls

A newly announced Credit One settlement is drawing national attention after recent reports revealed that Credit One Bank, N.A., has agreed to a proposed $14 million resolution tied to allegations of illegal robocalls. 

According to reporting from the Hindustan Times on June 21, 2025, the agreement comes after claims that the bank and its affiliates allegedly used automated dialing systems to contact consumers between 2014 and 2019 without the required permission under federal law. The settlement has not yet received final court approval, and more information—including official claim instructions—is expected to be released soon. 

For now, the developing Credit One TCPA class action may impact a wide range of consumers who received calls during that five-year period, even if they never held an account with the bank.

Background of the Allegations

The allegations at the center of the Credit One robocall lawsuit revolve around reported violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), a federal law in relevant part that restricts automated or prerecorded calls made without prior express consent. The Hindustan Times reported that Credit One and affiliated entities allegedly relied on automated systems to deliver payment reminders or marketing messages, including to individuals who had no relationship with the bank. 

Some consumers reportedly stated that the calls continued even after they requested them to stop.

Similarly, MSN noted on May 25, 2025, that the lawsuit asserts the bank contacted consumers using automated dialing technologies without prior consent, a key requirement under the TCPA. 

While the bank denies wrongdoing, multiple reports confirm that it chose to settle the matter rather than continue litigating, resulting in the current Credit One $14M settlement proposal.

Who May Qualify for the Settlement

Because the allegations involve unsolicited Credit One calls, the pool of potentially eligible claimants is unusually broad. As summarized by MSN and Auburn Hill Selder Law, individuals may qualify if:

• They received an automated or prerecorded call from Credit One Bank or its affiliates between 2014 and 2019.
• They did not provide consent to be contacted through automated dialing systems.
• They can verify ownership of the number called during that time frame.

Even if they are unsure, they may still file a submission for review.

Because many calls were reportedly placed to wrong numbers or recycled numbers, people with no direct connection to the bank could still fall under the scope of the Credit One automated calls lawsuit. This eligibility framework positions the matter as one of the more expansive consumer-facing TCPA settlements in recent years.

Expected Payment Amounts in the Credit One TCPA Class Action

The total fund for the Credit One settlement is approximately $14 million, and according to both the Hindustan Times and MSN, payout estimates range from roughly $100 to as much as $1,000 per claimant. The exact amount will depend on the number of people who file valid claims.

Auburn Hill Selder Law explains that claimants who submit stronger evidence—such as call logs, phone bills, voicemails, or screenshots showing Credit One phone numbers—may qualify for higher payments. Those unable to provide documentation may still be eligible for a base amount. 

It is important to note that these payment projections remain estimates. All final payout amounts will be determined after the official claim review period closes.

How Claim Submission Will Work (Once Available)

Currently, no official claim website or form has been released. The settlement still requires full court approval before the claims phase can begin. Auburn Hill Selder Law states that once the settlement is approved, a dedicated website will go live, and instructions will be distributed by email or postal mail to individuals whose numbers appear in Credit One’s call records.

Some individuals may receive a personalized Claim ID to speed up the process through a pre-filled online portal once the site launches.

The release date for the claims site, filing deadlines, and payment schedule remain pending.

When Payments May Be Distributed

Auburn Hill Selder Law reports that payments will be issued only after all claims are reviewed and the court grants final approval. The timeline can span several months depending on the number of submissions and the administrative review process. Once claims are validated, payments may be sent via check, direct deposit, or digital transfer.

Consumers are encouraged to monitor both email and physical mail for official notices, as failing to respond promptly could delay or jeopardize eligibility.

Consumer Protection Context

The Credit One robocall lawsuit has unfolded at a time when consumer reporting agencies continue to track a high volume of concerns about debt-related calls. According to Martin & Bontrager, APC, federal law—including the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act—restricts collection behaviors such as calling before 8 a.m. or after 9 p.m. and requires collectors to validate debts within five days of initial contact. 

The firm also notes that the TCPA adds additional protections by prohibiting robocalls to cell phones without the requisite type of consent.

What’s Next: A Broader Trend in Consumer Litigation

The tentative Credit One settlement fits into a larger national trend of legal scrutiny toward automated calling practices. As enforcement agencies and courts continue examining how companies use autodialing systems, consumers who received unwanted calls are increasingly exploring whether they may be eligible for compensation through class action settlements such as the one tied to Credit One.

The developing Credit One TCPA class action may offer relief to consumers who received unwanted automated calls between 2014 and 2019. 

As a legal resource hub dedicated to helping consumers navigate the complexities of the legal landscape, we encourage readers to stay informed through reliable updates and to review their rights under federal consumer protection laws.