Mint Mobile review: Service is good. Customer service is not so good.

August 15, 2026
Mint Internet Pone Call

On August 11, 2026, I received a modem that malfunctioned four times, repeatedly displaying a “no SIM card” error. Although functionality was restored following a restart and SIM reinsertion, I contacted Mint customer service to report the issue; a replacement modem is currently being shipped. During the initial call, I inquired about data management over the next 12 days under my Mint Phone plan. The representative proposed an upgrade, noting that bundling phone and internet services had already converted my plan to unlimited. Although the representative offered to upgrade my phone to unlimited data, the associated cost was not disclosed. Subsequently, a charge of $94.21 was applied without prior notification or explicit authorization.

A follow-up call with a representative named Skye revealed that the $94.21 was for the upgrade. After a two-hour discussion trying to get the charge returned, I requested a supervisor because the explanation she gave remained unclear. I then spoke with Anna, who identified herself as a supervisor. She stated that the only resolution was to refund the $94.21 plus $260.95—a total of $355.16—and wait for my device to lose signal and be removed from the plan. Once service and access were terminated, I would be able to log in to the Mint Mobile App and renew the plan; she recommended a three-month, 6 GB option. She further suggested switching to a one-year unlimited plan upon renewal in November 2026.

The initial proposal was unacceptable; accordingly, I submitted a counteroffer to apply a $94.21 courtesy credit to my account while maintaining my existing unlimited plan. The representative indicated this option was unavailable; however, I believe this assessment is incorrect. I have previously received a courtesy credit a few years ago, and a colleague obtained one under similar conditions just 3 weeks ago.

Anna stated that my decision to upgrade to the unlimited plan was irreversible and required a full refund. I clarified that I had not authorized such a change and the unlimited upgrade was not my decision; it was offered because I bundled my phone with internet. The initial representative had implemented it on the premise that my plan would transition to unlimited due to its integration with MINTernet.

I expressed concern that it would be unreasonable for a company to resolve an issue without disclosing associated fees and subsequently impose a charge without prior notice of the charge. I informed Anna that I consider this practice unethical and harmful to customer relations.

Anna reiterated that she was unable to take further action, though she stated her position as supervisor gave her the authorization to do it. Given the lack of alternatives, I reluctantly authorized the $355.16 refund under protest. I subsequently inquired about the three months of service provided from May through August; Anna confirmed that a full refund would be issued and that no charges would be applied for the period from May 27 through August 15.

In conclusion, I consider the conduct of Mint Mobile and the supervisor, Anna, to be unprofessional and lacking in empathy regarding the charges applied by the initial representative for the unlimited plan, as I had not been informed of those charges during that conversation. This matter could have been resolved by issuing a refund of $94.21 or applying a courtesy credit of the same amount toward my next renewal.