In Smith v. Capital One Financial Corp.  2012 WL 1669347 (N.D.Cal. 2012), Judge Hamilton held that an FDCPA claim and common law invasion of privacy claim would not lie against a credit card company collecting its own obligations.

However, a company that extends a consumer credit line (e.g., a credit card company) is in the business of extending credit, not the business of collecting debts. Notwithstanding plaintiff’s allegation that the “credit card companies” are “debt collectors,” it is evident from the allegations in the FAC taken as a whole that Capital One and HSBC do not meet the statutory definition. The term “debt collector” does not include a creditor that is attempting to collect its own debts. 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6)(A). A creditor is “any person who offers or extends credit creating a debt or to whom a debt is owed.” 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(4). The distinction between creditors and debt collectors is fundamental to the FDCPA, because the Act does not regulate creditors’ activities at all. See In re Chaussee, 399 B.R. 225, 243 & n. 24 (9th Cir.BAP2008). Accord-ingly, because the court finds that plaintiff cannot state a FDCPA claim against Capital One or HSBC, and that further amendment would be futile, the dismissal of this claim against those two defendants is with prejudice.

The District Court also held that no invasion of privacy claim would lie.

Moreover, there are no facts pled in the FAC that raise the claim above the speculative level. Plaintiff has not alleged that the representatives of Capital One or HSBC engaged in any of the conduct that courts have recognized as actionable invasion of privacy. Plaintiff does not allege that defendants’ repre-sentatives called and did not identify themselves, that they called back immediately after actually speaking to her, that they spoke to her co-workers or family members about the debt, or that they made harassing statements. See, e.g., Robinson v. Managed Accounts Receivables Corp., 654 F.Supp.2d 1051, 1055–1056 (C.D.Cal.2009) (finding invasion of privacy where defendant called debtor at work after being told not to call at work and spoke with debtor’s co-workers); Fausto v. Credigy, 598 F.Supp.2d 1049, 1056 (N.D.Cal.2009) (claim for invasion of privacy adequately stated where defendant refused to identify itself, made harassing statements, and called back immediately after debtor ended call); Joseph v. J.J. Mac Intyre Cos., L.L.C., 238 F.Supp.2d 1158, 1161, 1168 (N.D.Cal.2002) (claim for invasion of privacy where defendant called physically disabled patient to collect on debt for which patient was already paying on a monthly basis). The only conduct alleged is calls made to plain-tiff’s phone, which is far from the conduct that courts have found “highly offensive.” Moreover, Capital One and HSBC are creditors, and as such, are al-lowed to take reasonable steps to pursue payment. Bundren v. Superior Court, 145 Cal.App.3d 784, 789 (1983). The court finds that the invasion of privacy claim must be dismissed.