After my second case closed without notice, I opened a third on October 1. On October 4, after what it called a review of the full history, Support wrote that “the available Support records do not establish a definitive product rule” for how an active Pro weekly Codex window meets a downgrade to Plus. No refund, no credit, no reset. OpenAI has no measure for its own meter, and in place of an answer, its support suggested I spend a reset I didn’t have.

The first reply asked for my September 16 invoice, any /status capture from that week, and a copy of the second case’s message saying a review was underway, whose outcome was “not present in the current case record”. That is OpenAI’s own invoice and OpenAI’s own message. The /status I had sent showed 0% the morning Plus began; had it been checked a few hours later, they could have argued I drained it with strenuous work on GPT-6 Astra. Under their billing model, the meter is theirs. Why am I the one producing the record of how it drained?

On October 2, after what it called “the available T1 review”, Support confirmed the Plus billing date, my last reset on September 14, and no reset on the 16th, yet could not conclusively determine whether carrying the old window to September 21 was “expected behavior or an incorrect entitlement state”. I am not in a position to ascertain that. Making the judgment is their job, and the lack of one is the problem. Support even advised keeping details next time “so the event can be reviewed while the account state is still current”. I reported it on September 16, while the meter still read 0%. They never reached a conclusion; the second case simply closed.

The October 2 and 4 replies both suggested using an available reset, adding that it would not count as compensation. I had used all three banked resets by September 14, and by October the window had long reset on its own. A banked reset is a promotion handed out in public, not a fix for a private matter. The last reply also linked an article on buying one, which for Plus reportedly runs $5 to $8; my account doesn’t offer it. I paid $20 for the month, lost less than $5 of it, and was pointed toward paying again. That’s crazy talk. They don’t seem to grasp the chronology, and the performance makes me wonder whether these replies were human in name only.

If the billing cycle were properly established, last month’s usage would not creep into this one. A utility bill carrying a balance over at least labels it a surcharge, a credit, or a debit. This came with no label at all, and had it happened on a business account, the gap would dwarf a measly $5.

Nothing has happened since. The weekly reset rolled by September 21, and during that whole billing cycle, Support never came back to me with a result. The monthly subscription renewed on October 16 again, 30 days after I found the zero. The deadline to formally request a refund under statute is also 30 days. My goal was never to ask for cancellation, let alone to terminate my current and future subscription with OpenAI, so a refund wasn’t a real option; still, it was my right, and OpenAI dragged the case past that deadline without a ruling. For a company that is no longer a mom-and-pop shop, the lack of an established billing cycle is alarming when critics see AI as the next utility of our generation.