I made this a public inquiry.
Here is what came back.
I told OpenAI Support, in writing, that this inquiry and their response would be published here.
I provided the request ID that their own error page instructs users to submit.
I pointed out the contradiction between what their support tool shows and what the login actually returns.
I asked two direct questions.
Here is what I sent:
14 Jun AM6:29 UTC
Hi,
Thank you for reaching back to OpenAI Support.
If you believe your account was deactivated in error, please submit an appeal using the link included in the deactivation email you received. Using that link ensures your appeal is routed to the appropriate team for review.
Once you’ve submitted your appeal, we kindly ask that you wait for the appropriate team to complete their review and reach out to you with their decision. They will contact you as soon as the review process is complete.
We appreciate your patience and understanding. If you have any other general questions, please let us know and we’ll be happy to help.
Best,
***
OpenAI Support
14 Jun AM7:38 UTC
Case Number: ***
This reply arrived 31 minutes after my inquiry.
It does not answer either of the two questions I asked. It does not mention the request ID. It does not mention the screenshot. It directs me to the appeal form — the same form that OpenAI told me, in writing on July 3, would no longer accept my submissions.
I stated in advance that this was a public inquiry and that any response would be published. This reply has been published, unedited.
I am now asking one question, and it is not about my account.
Does OpenAI Support read the messages it responds to?
If the answer is yes, then explain how a message stating “the appeal process has been closed to me in writing” produces a reply instructing me to submit an appeal.
If the answer is no, then that is the finding, and it will be published as such.
14 Jun AM7:54 UTC
Hi,
Thank you for reaching out to OpenAI Support.
We understand your concerns regarding your account deactivation, the previous appeal process, and your request for additional clarification. We appreciate you taking the time to share the details of your experience.
After reviewing your case, we can confirm that a decision has already been made regarding your account. We kindly ask that you review the emails previously sent to the email address associated with your account, as they contain the outcome of the review and any information available regarding your case.
We understand this may not be the outcome you were hoping for, and we appreciate your patience and understanding throughout this process.
Best,
***
OpenAI Support
14 Jun AM7:54 UTC
Case Number: ***
Your response does not answer either of the two questions I asked.
CONTRADICTIONS IN YOUR RESPONSE
- “Review the emails previously sent”
Here is the complete content of those emails:
- June 25: One sentence stating that my “recent activity violated our Terms and Usage Policies.”
- June 30: Appeal rejected. No reason stated.
- July 3: Appeal rejected. No reason stated. No further appeals will be considered.
Nowhere is it written which action violated which clause. You are directing me to information that does not exist.
- “Your request for additional clarification”
It is not additional. No clarification has ever been given.
- “A decision has already been made”
A decision whose grounds have never been stated is not a decision. It is a declaration.
- On July 4, your support team confirmed that “the account is active and has not been deleted.”
The actual login returns a deactivation error. Now you tell me a decision has been made.
This contradiction remains unexplained.
MY POSITION
I am not asking for anything complicated.
If I am at fault, state my fault clearly. If the reason is legitimate, I will not press further.
You have two available options:
- Provide a specific reason and uphold the deactivation.
- Acknowledge the error and restore access.
Continuing the deactivation without explanation is a third option that is not legitimate. It strips a paying user of access without stated grounds, and it is a failure to fulfill your obligation as a service provider.
THE QUESTION
My question is simple.
Which action violated which clause?
Why is answering this difficult?
Is it that you are unable to explain — or that there is something you cannot explain?
15 Jun AM6:27 UTC
Nearly 24 hours have now passed.
Silence is also an answer. It means there is no counterargument, and it is no different from answering “Yes” to my question.
Regarding one sentence in your last message, here is my interpretation:
“We understand this may not be the outcome you were hoping for, and we appreciate your patience and understanding throughout this process.”
I read this as meaning:
“We will not respond further. Consider yourself unlucky and give up.”
And this sentence is not directed at me alone. I interpret it as OpenAI’s answer to every user reporting the same problem in this community.
I am asking you to confirm whether this is your final answer.
The only response that would show you are willing to offer a defense is to state, specifically:
- which action I took, and
- which clause it violated.
Any other response, and silence as well, I will interpret as proof that OpenAI is treating us as offenders who are owed no statement of the offense.
I will wait 48 hours as a reasonable grace period.
I can only post up to two times in a row, so I’m adding this to my previous post.