The card that is signed at a counter or over the phone: what can be claimed today for a revolving credit card?

Today I sit down to write this article after helping a son with his 76-year-old mother, who was offered a credit card—the exact words being, “whose €3,000 balance she could use, paying only €30/month .” Almost no one would decide to sign up for a revolving credit card if they were told what they were about to sign. It's signed at the supermarket checkout while paying for bags, at the counter of a department store in exchange for a discount, or at the end of a seven-minute phone call. It's presented as a points card, a loyalty card, or a deferred payment card. It's rarely presented as what it is: a consumer credit contract with an indefinite term.

The result becomes apparent years later, and it's almost always someone else who discovers it. A son reviews his mother's accounts, sees a monthly charge of thirty or forty euros that has been there since 2019, and notices something that doesn't add up: the outstanding debt is practically the same as it was five years ago.

It's not a bank error. It's the product functioning exactly as designed.

The client asks me, "Why isn't the debt going down?"

With a revolving credit card, the cardholder sets a reduced monthly payment and the credit is automatically replenished: each time a portion is paid off, it becomes available again for new withdrawals.

The combination that explains everything is this: a high APR combined with a very low minimum payment. When the annual interest rate approaches or exceeds 20%, and the monthly payment barely covers the interest accrued, the principal is not amortized. In the most extreme cases, the payment doesn't even cover the interest, and the difference is capitalized: the debt grows while it is being paid.

The Supreme Court has a term for the person who ends up in that situation: captive debtor . Someone who pays on time, for years, with no real possibility of getting out.

A rough example, using round numbers: €3,000 borrowed, an APR of 24%, and a monthly payment of €40. In the first few months, around €60 in interest versus €40 in monthly payment. The debt doesn't decrease. It increases.

What has changed since February 17, 2026?

For years, claiming against a revolving credit card meant only one thing: proving that the interest rate was usurious. That is no longer the only way.

Judgment 257/2026, of February 17, of the First Chamber of the Supreme Court The court resolved the first class action lawsuit filed against a card of this type. The plaintiff was the financial users' association ASUFIN; the defendant was Servicios Financieros Carrefour EFC, SA, issuer of the "Pass" card.

The Supreme Court has declared the clause regulating the revolving payment system null and void. And the reasoning behind this decision is worth emphasizing: It's not the cost that invalidates it, but its lack of transparency. The information provided before signing the contract didn't allow the average consumer to understand how the loan worked or what its financial consequences would be. This lack of transparency creates a significant imbalance, contrary to good faith, and renders the clause abusive.

It is a much more accessible path than usury, because it does not require comparing rates or resorting to statistics: it requires looking at what was explained to the client and how.

That ruling didn't come out of nowhere. Rulings 154/2025 and 155/2025 had already paved the way for addressing the lack of transparency in contracts that failed the usury test, specifying what information must be provided before signing: how the amortization system works, the installment amount, the expected duration of the contract, whether interest accrues only on the principal or also on accumulated interest, and examples that allow for comparison with other products.

Usury: another open avenue

When the interest rate is disproportionate, the provisions of the 1908 Law for the Repression of Usury apply. The criteria here are established by Judgment 258/2023, of February 15 : a revolving credit facility is considered usurious when the agreed APR exceeds the average market rate for that product at the time of contracting by more than six percentage points , according to the Statistical Bulletin of the Bank of Spain. For contracts prior to 2010, the average rate for 2010, around 19.5%, is used as a reference.

The two paths are not mutually exclusive. In practice, they are considered subsidiary, and often one succeeds where the other fails.

What exactly can you recover?

If the clause falls, the effect is decisive: the holder only owes the capital actually drawn down. Everything paid above that amount (interest, fees, linked insurance premiums) must be refunded, with legal interest from each payment.

In older, long-term contracts, this often means that the holder owes nothing and it is the entity that has to return the money.

The deadline that ruins many of the claims that come to the Office

Here's the part that almost no one explains on social media, and it's the part that's best read slowly.

The Plenary Session of the First Chamber of the Supreme Court ruled in March 2025 on the statute of limitations in these contracts, and distinguished two actions:

• The action to declare nullity does not prescribe or expire. In the case of absolute nullity, it can always be exercised.

• The right to recover the money does expire. It is subject to the five-year statute of limitations established in Article 1964 of the Civil Code, and (this is the crucial point) The term is calculated with respect to each monthly payment , not from the cancellation of the contract.

Translated: Today, only payments made in the five years prior to the claim are refundable. Every month of waiting is a month lost on the other end. On a credit card taken out in 2012 and paid for over thirteen years, the difference between claiming now or in two years can be several thousand euros.

Therefore, in these cases, the first useful action is not to sue: it is to interrupt the prescription in writing.

When the answer comes from a phone call, as in the case that occupied me a few days ago

Many of these contracts, especially among older people, don't originate at a bank counter but over the phone. Someone calls offering "improved terms," "a free card," or "insurance that was already included." On the other end is a 76-year-old who doesn't know if they're talking to their bank.

There, three more doors open:

• Distance contracts. Contracts concluded by telephone include a fourteen-day right of withdrawal, without the need for justification. And when the company makes the call, the offer must be confirmed on a durable medium: the consumer is not bound until they accept it in writing. If the contract is recent, this is the fastest and cheapest method.

• The status of vulnerable consumer. Law 4/2022, of February 25, incorporated the concept of the vulnerable consumer into the consolidated text of the General Law for the Defense of Consumers and Users, taking into account circumstances such as age or conditions that hinder access to information. This is not merely a decorative label: it raises the standard of clarity required of the entity. To claim that an eighty-two-year-old person, without digital skills and contacted by telephone, received transparent information about a revolving credit system is, at the very least, debatable.

• The money that was withdrawn from the account. If there were also unauthorized withdrawals—codes provided over the phone to someone impersonating the bank—the rule is the opposite of what the bank usually applies. Supreme Court Ruling 571/2025, of April 9 , establishes that it is the bank's responsibility to prove that the transaction was authorized, that its security system functioned, and that the customer acted with gross negligence or fraud. The fact that the code sent by SMS was used correctly does not prove that the account holder consented. The legal framework is Royal Decree-Law 19/2018 and Directive (EU) 2015/2366, and the general rule is a refund to the user unless gross negligence is proven on the part of the bank.

Five checks you can do this week:

1. Locate the contract and the latest statement. Compare your current outstanding debt with the debt you had two years ago. If they're similar, you're dealing with a revolving credit card.

2. Look for the APR in the contract , not the "monthly interest rate." This is the figure that determines whether usury is also a factor.

3. Request the complete transaction history from the entity, starting from the origin. You have the right to obtain it, and without it, the amount you can claim cannot be calculated. It is advisable to request it in writing.

4. Check if there are any associated insurance policies such as payment protection, life insurance, or unemployment insurance; these are charged monthly. They often add up to more than you remember.

5. Interrupt the statute of limitations as soon as possible by filing a formal claim. This is the only way to stop the loss of claimable months while the case is being reviewed.

Our recommendation

If an elderly relative has been paying off a credit card for years with a debt that won't go down, don't dismiss it as a minor oversight. Gather the contract, transaction history, and dates, and request a review before the five-year term continues to erode the balance.

At Delgado Garrucho Abogados , we analyze revolving credit card contracts, consumer loans, and claims for unauthorized transactions in Málaga and Cádiz. Our initial contract review will tell you within a few days if there are grounds for a claim and how much.

Write to us and we will study your case.

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Each case requires examination of the contract, pre-contractual documentation, and the complete history of disbursements and payments.