Advertisement
Mint Mobile is facing legal trouble in California over allegations that it recorded customer service phone calls without informing consumers. If true, Mint Mobile would be in violation of the state's privacy laws.
The lawsuit was filed on March 5, 2025, by plaintiff Greg May in Orange County Superior Court and detailed by the website Top Class Actions. May claims that Mint Mobile, a prepaid wireless brand owned by T-Mobile, illegally recorded conversations with its customers without their consent, in violation of California’s Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA), specifically Penal Code Section 632.7.
Allegations of Undisclosed Call Recordings
According to the lawsuit, May contacted Mint Mobile’s customer support line in December 2024 to ask about wireless plan options. During that call, he alleges he was never told the conversation was being recorded. The complaint asserts that Mint Mobile has a practice of recording both inbound and outbound customer calls as a matter of policy, without consistently notifying callers that recording is taking place.
California law requires that all parties involved in a phone call must be informed and give consent before a call can be legally recorded. Section 632.7 of the California Penal Code, which was added in 1992, explicitly extends these protections to conversations conducted over cell phones and cordless phones.
Section (a) of The Penal Code specifically states:
"Every person who, without the consent of all of the parties to a communication, intercepts or receives and intentionally records, or assists in the interception or reception and intentional recordation of, a communication transmitted between two cellular radio telephones, a cellular radio telephone and a landline telephone, two cordless telephones, a cordless telephone and a landline telephone, or a cordless telephone and a cellular radio telephone, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500), or by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or in the state prison, or by both that fine and imprisonment. If the person has been convicted previously of a violation of this section or of Section 631, 632, 632.5, 632.6, or 636, the person shall be punished by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000), by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or in the state prison, or by both that fine and imprisonment."
Class Action Seeks Damages and Policy Changes
May is seeking to represent a class of California residents who spoke with Mint Mobile by cellular phone and had their conversations recorded without consent within the year preceding the lawsuit’s filing. The complaint demands $5,000 in statutory damages per violation for each class member. It also seeks a court order to prohibit Mint Mobile from continuing the alleged practice of recording calls without clear prior disclosure.
Dismissal Appears Unlikely if Allegations Hold Up in Court
Although I'm now a lawyer, I read over the penal code, and one part of it stood out to me as a possible way Mint Mobile could seek to have the case dismissed.
Section 632.7(b)(1) of the Penal Code lists the following as an exemption from penalty:
"Any public utility, or telephone company, engaged in the business of providing communications services and facilities, or to the officers, employees, or agents thereof, where the acts otherwise prohibited are for the purpose of construction, maintenance, conduct, or operation of the services and facilities of the public utility or telephone company."
I asked ChatGPT whether this section could allow Mint Mobile to avoid liability. According to its analysis, the exemption provides a possible legal argument, but one that likely wouldn't hold up in this case. Here's why:
Why that defense might not hold:
- Consent is still expected under California law – Even if they qualify under (b)(1), California courts have historically interpreted privacy laws broadly in favor of consumer protection, especially when it comes to call recordings.
- Courts scrutinize whether the call recording was truly necessary for operations, or if it was excessive or improperly disclosed. Mint Mobile would likely need to prove the recordings were:
- Essential to service operations
- Properly safeguarded
- Not used for marketing or profiling without consent
- Case law matters – California courts have ruled in the past that customer-facing companies must disclose when calls are recorded, even if those companies are in the business of communications. Just being a "telephone company" does not automatically grant immunity from all consent requirements.
Example Precedents:
- Kight v. CashCall, Inc. (2011) — the court said companies must inform customers when they are recording calls, even if done for business purposes.
Generally, courts draw a distinction between internal operational communications (which may qualify for exemption) and consumer-facing calls, which require consent under the law.
Who This Lawsuit Might Affect, and What to Do if You’re One of Them
The case is titled May v. Mint Mobile LLC, Case No. 30-2025-01464892-CU-NP-CXC, and is being heard in the Superior Court of California, County of Orange. If you believe you may have been affected and want to explore joining the class action, you may want to contact Greenstone Law APC, the firm representing May.
It's not clear how many people this issue may have impacted. Most of Mint Mobile's business is likely done online with customers seeking support help through digital means. However, in 2021, BestMVNO reported that Mint Mobile launched a senior plan targeting those aged 55 and up. The plan launched with an emphasis on offering premium customer support with the option to get help via a phone call. Mint Mobile's senior plan webpage still features a button visitors can click to initiate a call for help with their plan or starting service.