The Mint Dentistry lawsuit picture involves three separate tracks: a federal Fair Labor Standards Act case filed by a former employee in late 2024, a trademark cancellation proceeding brought against the company at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in 2022, and dozens of consumer complaints logged with the Better Business Bureau. The Texas-based chain, which operates more than 30 offices across the Dallas and Houston areas, is the defendant in each.
The 2024 Wage and Hour Lawsuit
A former employee, Ashley White, sued Mint Dentistry, PLLC under the Fair Labor Standards Act in late 2024. The case started in Harris County’s 113th Judicial District Court, and Mint Dentistry removed it to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas on November 15, 2024. It was assigned to Judge George C. Hanks, Jr.1PACER Monitor. White v. Mint Dentistry, PLLC
White is represented by the Shavitz Law Group, which handles wage-and-hour cases. Mint Dentistry is defended by Ogletree Deakins.1PACER Monitor. White v. Mint Dentistry, PLLC The docket classifies the case as “710 Labor – Fair Labor Standards Act.” Publicly available records do not specify whether White’s claims involve unpaid overtime, misclassification, or another wage theory, and the case has not been certified as a collective action as of the last available docket update.
The Trademark Cancellation Fight Over the Mint Dentistry Name
In November 2022, a separate company called Mint Dentistry, LLC filed a cancellation petition at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Trademark Trial and Appeal Board against Mint Dentistry, PLLC. The petition sought to cancel the PLLC’s federal trademark registration for the name “Mint Dentistry,” registration number 5598242, filed under serial number 85950760.2USPTO TTAB. Proceeding 92080989 The LLC was represented by Stetina Brunda Garred & Brucker, a California intellectual property firm.
The proceeding has been terminated. The public docket does not detail the specific basis for the cancellation petition or the terms on which the matter ended.3Law360. Mint Dentistry LLC v. Mint Dentistry PLLC
Consumer Complaints Through the BBB
The largest body of grievances against Mint Dentistry sits outside the courts. As of mid-2025, the Better Business Bureau reported 55 complaints filed against the company over the preceding three years, with nine closed in the most recent 12-month period. Mint Dentistry holds BBB accreditation and an A+ rating, answered 48 of the complaints, and had seven marked resolved.4BBB. Mint Dentistry Complaints
The complaints split into 32 service and repair issues, 14 product issues, and 5 billing disputes.4BBB. Mint Dentistry Complaints Recurring themes include unexpected charges tied to annual memberships, double billing for X-rays, and insurance confusion; failed crowns, disputed “deep cleaning” recommendations, and dissatisfaction with root canals and dentures; and communication problems ranging from rude staff to trouble obtaining medical records and unclear treatment costs.
In its responses, Mint Dentistry generally pointed to signed treatment plans and consent forms, cited internal reviews by its dental director finding the work met the “standard of care,” and in some cases offered partial refunds, credits, or reassignment to senior dental staff. The company applies specific warranty timeframes, including one-year warranties on root canals and five-year warranties on crowns, and requires patients to have kept up with preventive care to qualify for warranty coverage.5BBB. Mint Dentistry Complaints Where Mint Dentistry declined a refund, it typically argued that the patient had signed the required documentation or had not returned for recommended follow-up visits within the applicable window.4BBB. Mint Dentistry Complaints
None of the BBB matters are lawsuits, and a complaint on that file is not a legal finding against the company. For patients considering their own next step, the practical boundary is that the BBB process produces responses and sometimes refunds, not court judgments.