Following my case and petition, yesterday, I was finally able to verify my phone number. Turns out the phone number was never registered in an account. The verification system was (is?) broken. Just as suspected. I suspect the fix was provided in a recent update.

However, this isn't the end. Many people out there complain of this service, of similar or other issues. I'll have the petition still running. The fix isn't an excuse for the company to act in bad faith. During this battle, I've been deprived of my right to be informed, my right to choose, my right to be heard, and my right to redress. First, I'm told none solution may be provided. Then, I'm told the solution is to create a new account. Are they lying? This constitutes an attack to the right to be informed and right to choose. A choice based on misleading information is invalid. Given the lies, it's clear none consideration was given to properly address the issue. This constitutes an attack to the right to be heard. These attacks constitute an attack to the right to redress.

Many people out there are unaware of their rights as a consumer. These rights were introduced in 1962, and expanded in 1985.

How does that constitute an attack to the right to be informed?

A sham solution, a solution which is known is ineffective, violates the principle of the right to be informed. The company can't provide a solution without knowing the result. That's bad faith act.

How does that constitute an attack to the right to choose?

The principle of the right to choose is "to be assured, wherever possible, access to a variety of products and services". One cannot be assured access to a solution based on misleading information. The violation to the right to choose is accompanied of a violation to the right to be informed. A sham solution, a solution which is known is ineffective, invalidates the right to choose.

How does that constitute an attack to the right to be heard?

The principle of the right to be heard is "to be assured that consumer interests will receive full and sympathetic consideration". Providing a sham solution, such as creating a new account, violates this right. Creating a new account doesn't address the issue. It's a clear demonstration none consideration was given to properly address the issue. Any sort of dismissal or excuse can be argued to be a violation to the right to be heard.

How does that constitute an attack to the right to redress?

A redress is only valid if it actually does a fix. By providing a sham solution, a solution which is known is ineffective, the company engaged in a violation of all these said and given rights, plus the right to redress. 

Note I'm not a lawyer. This saying is based upon the given rights, research, and AI consultation.