The legal challenge originated from a complaint filed by Lynn Strange, who alleged that the bank charged her an interest rate of approximately 30% for over a year on a $2,000 balance. Strange argued that this figure was five times the 6% maximum rate permitted under Virginia law and maintained that she never explicitly consented to the higher charges.

Judge Chuang dismissed these claims, noting that the credit card agreement granted Capital One the authority to modify terms. The court concluded that the contract was legally enforceable because it contained reciprocal commitments between the bank and the customer. Furthermore, the judge clarified that the 6% interest cap cited by the plaintiff applies exclusively to agreements that lack an express interest rate, rendering the argument inapplicable to the terms established in Strange’s account.