{
  "$type": "site.standard.document",
  "bskyPostRef": {
    "cid": "bafyreiceamcd75wkni3ltstsoa5jpr7fsdkrfq67lu5opauqr6e6l4icxq",
    "uri": "at://did:plc:lk3jfj3zq4k4wxnk474axylu/app.bsky.feed.post/3mohf6egi55p2"
  },
  "path": "/t/codex-login-forces-phone-otp-to-an-inaccessible-old-number-after-successful-chatgpt-login-mfa-pro-user-blocked-case-10149749/1383953#post_1",
  "publishedAt": "2026-06-17T03:18:31.000Z",
  "site": "https://community.openai.com",
  "tags": [
    "auth.openai.com/phone-otp/select-channel"
  ],
  "textContent": "Case Number: 10149749\n\nI’m a ChatGPT Pro subscriber. ChatGPT web login works normally and my other verification methods (MFA) all work.\n\nThe problem is Codex-specific: when I sign in to Codex via “Sign in with ChatGPT”, after authentication succeeds the OAuth flow still redirects me to phone OTP verification (auth.openai.com/phone-otp/select-channel) and sends the code to an old +91 number I can no longer access. ChatGPT web and platform login on the same account never ask for this.\n\nThis is NOT a request to change my phone number. I understand OpenAI currently doesn’t support changing the account phone number. The issue is that the Codex OAuth/client login forces an SMS phone-OTP step-up even though my account’s other verification methods work, so I’m fully blocked from Codex, which is included in my paid Pro plan.\n\nI opened a support ticket (Case 10149749) but received a templated reply that phone numbers can’t be changed or bypassed, which doesn’t address the Codex-only behavior.\n\nThis looks identical to several existing reports:\n\n- Community: Case 09491223, Case 10071024, “Locked out of Codex because of an old phone number?”\n\n- GitHub: openai/codex #25737, #25749, #25800\n\nCould someone please route Case 10149749 to the Codex/Auth team to review/reset the Codex phone-OTP step-up, or provide an alternative secure verification path?",
  "title": "Codex login forces phone OTP to an inaccessible old number after successful ChatGPT login + MFA — Pro user blocked (Case 10149749)"
}