UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM10-K

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 20142017

or

For transition period from                    to                    

Commission File Number of Issuing Entity: 000-20787-07

AMERICAN EXPRESS CREDIT ACCOUNT MASTER TRUST

(Exact name of Issuing Entity as specified in respect of the Certificates)its charter)

(Exact name of Depositors as specified in their respective charters)

(Exact nameCommission File Number of Sponsors as specified in their respective charters)Issuing Entity:000-20787-07

Central Index Key Number of Issuing Entity: 0001003509

(212)815-6258

(Telephone Number, including area code

of the Issuing Entity,

c/o The Bank of New York Mellon)

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act: None

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: None

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act.    YES  ¨☐    NO  x☒

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act.    YES  ¨☐    NO  x☒

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.    YES  x☒    NO  ¨☐

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of RegulationS-T (§229.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files).    YES  ¨☐    NO  ¨☐

[Rule 405 of RegulationS-T is not applicable.]

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of RegulationS-K (§229.405 of this chapter) is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form10-K or any amendment to this Form10-K.  x☒

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, anon-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check one):

If an emerging growth company, indicate by check mark if the registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying with any new or revised financial accounting standards provided pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act.  YES  ☐    NO  ☐

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule12b-2 of the Act).    YES  ¨☐    NO  x☒

Registrant has no voting ornon-voting common equity outstanding held bynon-affiliates.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE: NONE

PART I

The following Items have been omitted in accordance with General Instruction J toForm 10-K:

Not Applicable.

Not Applicable.

Substitute Information provided in accordance with General Instruction J toForm 10-K:

Item 1112(b) of Regulation AB: Significant obligors of pool assets (Financial information).

The pool assets held by the American Express Credit Account Master Trust (the “Trust”) do not include any significant obligors.

Item 1114(b)(2) of Regulation AB: Credit enhancement and other support, except for certain derivatives instruments (Financial information).

Based on the standards set forth in Item 1114(b) of Regulation AB, no information is required in response to this Item.

Item 1115(b) of Regulation AB: Certain derivatives instruments (Financial information).

Based on the standards set forth in Item 1115(b) of Regulation AB, no information is required in response to this Item.

Item 1117 of Regulation AB: Legal proceedings.

In the ordinary course of business, American Express Company and its subsidiaries (“American Express”) are subject to various claims, investigations, examinations, pending and potential legal actions, and other matters relating to compliance with laws and regulations (collectively, legal proceedings). During the last several years, as regulatory interest in credit card network pricing to merchants or terms of merchant rules and contracts has increased, American Express Company and its subsidiaries (“American Express”) havehas responded to many inquiries from banking and competition authorities throughoutaround the world. In addition, the Department of Justice and various merchants have initiated legal proceedings to challenge aspects of American Express’ card acceptance agreements with merchants on antitrust grounds.

In 2010, the DOJ, along with Attorneys General from Arizona, Connecticut, Hawaii (Hawaii has since withdrawn its claim), Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Ohio, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Utah and Vermont filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York against American Express MasterCard International Incorporated and Visa, Inc., alleging a violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. The complaint allegesincluded allegations that the defendants’ policiesprovisions in American Express’ merchant agreements prohibiting merchants from steering a customer to use another network’s card or another type of general-purpose card or another method of payment (“anti-steering” and “non-discrimination” rules and“non-discrimination” contractual provisions) violate the antitrust laws. The complaint seekssought a judgment permanently enjoining the defendantsAmerican Express from enforcing their anti-steering and itsnon-discrimination rules and contractual provisions. The complaint doesdid not seek monetary damages.

The DOJ matter

2

Following anon-jury trial, the trial court found that the challenged provisions were anticompetitive and on April 30, 2015, the court issued a final judgment entering a permanent injunction. Following American Express’ appeal of this judgment, on September 26, 2016, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed the trial court decision and judgment in favor of American Express was coordinated pre-trialentered on January 25, 2017. Eleven of the 17 states that are party to the case filed a petition with the Supreme Court seeking a review of the Second Circuit’s decision. On October 16, 2017, the Supreme Court granted certiorari and oral argument was held on February 26, 2018 in the case, now captionedOhio v. American Express Co.

In addition, individual merchant cases and a putative class actionsaction, which were consolidated in 2011 and collectively captionedIn re: American Express Anti-Steering Rules Antitrust Litigation (II), are pending in the Eastern District of New York against American Express brought by merchants alleging that the “anti-steering”its anti-steering provisions in its merchant card acceptance agreements with the plaintiffs violate federalU.S. antitrust laws. As alleged by the plaintiffs, these provisions prevent merchants from steering consumers or offering consumers incentives to use alternative forms of payment when consumers wish to use an American Express-branded card. PlaintiffsThe individual merchant cases seek damages in unspecified amounts and injunctive relief. Arbitration proceedings raising similar claims also have been filed.

In July 2004, American Express was named as a defendant in aanother putative class action filed in the Southern District of New York and subsequently transferred to the Eastern District of New York, captionedThe Marcus Corporation v. American Express Company,Co., et al., in which the plaintiffs allege an unlawful antitrust tying arrangement between certain of American Express’ charge cards and credit cards in violation of various state and federal laws. The plaintiffs in these actionsthis action seek injunctive relief and an unspecified amount of damages.

In December 2013,re: American Express announcedAnti-Steering Rules Antitrust Litigation (II) andThe Marcus Corporation v. American Express Co., et al., including a proposed settlementtrial previously scheduled in the individual merchant cases, are stayed pending resolution of theMarcus case and appeal inOhio v. American Express Co. Further proceedings are anticipated.

Individual merchants have also initiated arbitration proceedings raising similar claims concerning the putative class actions challenginganti-steering provisions in American Express’ “anti-steering” or non-discrimination provisions. The settlement,card acceptance agreements and seeking damages. American Express is vigorously defending against those claims, which providesare similarly stayed.

On March 8, 2016, plaintiffs B&R Supermarket, Inc. d/b/a Milam’s Market and Grove Liquors LLC, on behalf of themselves and others, filed a suit, captionedB&R Supermarket, Inc. d/b/a Milam’s Market, et al. v. Visa Inc., et al., for certain injunctive reliefviolations of the Sherman Antitrust Act, the Clayton Antitrust Act, California’s Cartwright Act and unjust enrichment in the United States District Court for the proposed classes, received preliminary approval inNorthern District of California, against American Express Company, other credit and charge card networks, other issuing banks and EMVCo, LLC. Plaintiffs allege that the defendants, through EMVCo, conspired to shift liability for fraudulent, faulty and otherwise rejected consumer credit card transactions from themselves to merchants after the implementation of EMV chip payment terminals. Plaintiffs seek damages and injunctive relief. An amended complaint was filed on July 15, 2016. On September 30, 2016, the court denied American Express’ motion to dismiss as to claims brought by merchants who do not accept American Express cards, and on May 4, 2017, the California court transferred the case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The final approval hearing was held on September 17, 2014 and American Express is awaiting decision.

A non-jury trial in the DOJ matter concluded on August 18, 2014. Closing arguments were held on October 9, 2014 following submission of post-trial proposed findings and briefs. On February 19, 2015, the trial court found that the challenged provisions were anticompetitive and will now determine the scope of the remedy when it enters judgment in the case. American Express intends to vigorously pursue an appeal of the decision and judgment. A trial date for the individual merchant actions has not been set. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment in the individual merchant actions is pending.

In July 2004, a purported class action complaint,Ross, et al. v. American Express Company, American Express Travel Related Services and American Express Centurion Bank, was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging that American Express conspired with Visa, MasterCard and Diners Club in the setting of foreign currency conversion rates and in the inclusion of arbitration clauses in certain of their cardholder agreements. The suit seeks injunctive relief and unspecified damages. The class is defined as “all Visa, MasterCard and Diners Club general-purpose cardholders who used cards issued by any of the MDL Defendant Banks.” American Express Card Members are not part of the class. The settlement of the claims asserted on behalf of the damage class concerning foreign currency conversion rates was approved in 2012. On April 10, 2014, following a trial of the claims asserted by the injunction class concerning cardholder arbitration clauses, the Court dismissed plaintiffs’ claims and granted judgment in favor of American Express. Plaintiffs have appealed.

In October 2009, a putative class action, captionedLopez, et al. v. American Express Bank, FSB and American Express Centurion Bank, was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The amended complaint sought to certify a class of California American Express Card Members whose interest rates were changed from fixed to variable in or around August 2009 or otherwise increased. On August 20, 2014, plaintiffs filed an amended nationwide complaint and an unopposed motion for preliminary approval of a settlement of the claims alleged in that complaint. The settlement provides for certain relief to class members, attorneys’ fees and costs of up to $6 million. On September 22, 2014, the motion for preliminary approval was denied without prejudice to renew. The parties are responding to the Court’s questions regarding the class notice and claims processes and the request for preliminary approval will be renewed.