Is it legal to obtain or use someone else's credit card number without consent?
Executive summary
Using or obtaining another person’s credit card number without their consent is generally illegal and treated as fraud under federal and state law when done with intent to obtain goods, money, or services; penalties can include state theft or identity‑theft charges and federal prosecution where interstate commerce or thresholds apply [1] [2] [3]. By contrast, using a card with the cardholder’s explicit permission can be lawful in practice—but may violate the cardholder’s agreement with the issuer and create civil liability or account sanctions [4] [5] [6].
1. Criminal law: unauthorized use is prosecutable and often charged as fraud
Federal statute criminalizes using a counterfeit, stolen, or fraudulently obtained credit card in transactions affecting interstate or foreign commerce above statutory value thresholds, and obtaining goods or services by knowing use of such cards can trigger federal charges [1]; California’s Penal Code explicitly makes knowing use of another’s card to obtain value a theft or fraud offense [2], and other states have similar statutes criminalizing use with intent to defraud [7]. Legal commentary and criminal defense firms emphasize that unauthorized use is routinely treated as a serious white‑collar crime and can be prosecuted at state or federal levels depending on facts like interstate transactions and dollar amounts [8] [3] [9].
2. Permission matters — but it’s not a carte blanche
Multiple consumer‑facing guides and advocacy voices note a key distinction: if the cardholder gives clear permission, the transactor is typically not committing criminal fraud in the common sense, and lenders sometimes accept that as authorized use [6] [5] [4]. Legal discussion forums and some consumer law sources record that permitted use—especially when an account holder has added someone as an authorized user—avoids unauthorized‑use criminality while keeping the account holder liable for charges [10] [11]. However, permission from the cardholder does not erase contractual rules: many issuers forbid sharing cards or require issued‑name cards, and a cardholder who lends a card can still breach their agreement with the issuer and face account closure, fees, or other civil consequences [4].
3. The grey areas and common defenses prosecutors will test
Prosecutions turn on intent and knowledge: defenses often argue lack of intent to defraud (e.g., a mistaken use or belief of permission) and factual disputes about whether the owner consented [3] [12]. Practitioners warn that even family or roommate scenarios can become criminal matters if the owner later denies permission or reports the account compromised, and courts will examine the totality of communications and actions [9] [8]. State statutes vary on thresholds and specific language, creating uneven outcomes across jurisdictions [12] [7].
4. Civil exposure, restitution, and practical risks for cardholders and users
Beyond criminal penalties, unauthorized use triggers civil liabilities: victims can demand restitution, issuers can pursue cardholders for chargebacks, and cardholders risk losing credit protections or facing contractual penalties if they violated issuer terms by lending the card [4] [5]. Consumer protections limit liability for many fraudulent charges under federal law, but those protections are aimed at victims of theft rather than someone who knowingly lent a card that is later misused; banks may still close accounts or change terms if misuse is discovered [5] [4].
5. How reporting frames the issue and what remains uncertain
Public reporting and lawyer commentary emphasize the criminality of unauthorized use and the safer route of authorized users, but available sources focus on U.S. federal law and sample state statutes—coverage is not exhaustive, and state law variations and issuer contract terms can materially change outcomes in particular cases [1] [4] [7]. Where sources diverge is on the practical risk of prosecution for isolated, small‑value incidents versus larger or repeated uses; the materials reviewed show prosecutors prioritize intent, interstate elements, and dollar thresholds [1] [3].