You can probably sue Amazon for false advertising (again, subjected to Amazon's terms and conditions), but good luck proving that you have incurred any loss.
I don't believe you have any ground to sue Verizon.
I am sure that Verizon was smart enough to put a limitation on the time that one had to activate the service. They have very many lawyers that would never allow a deal with no end date.
But again, you buy something over 1 year ago and only activate now? Did you really need this service?
Anyhow - you should not expect people to have a special offer that never expires, you must activate it to get the benefits.
But honestly, sounds like you are crying over nothing if it is really 1 year ago that you purchased this. You are being unreasonable.
IANAL and not from the US. In the UK, though, if the firm really had breached the terms by withdrawing the service promised, the customer could procure replacement service at reasonable/market cost, and then sue for that amount. So, if it cost you $20 per month to get Verizon service on the laptop, then could you sue for $240.
I have no view on this particular case as I'm not familiar with the contract. (It does seem reasonable that the customer should activate the service within some finite time, but the contract should define this. If it were 100 years since the person bought the laptop, I'm not sure people would still be surprised they couldn't activate the offer.
He did not buy 100MB of Verizon service, that was a "bonus/bundle/offer".
Unless you're a lawyer or very well-versed in the UCC, I'd avoid trying to make conclusive statements like that about this topic.
Are we to understand that you are?
I think you mean an 'invitation to treat'. A price sticker in a store can be an 'invitation to treat', i.e. you can look at a price sticker in a store and have a reasonable expectation that if you offer the teller the amount on the price tag, then that teller will accept the price.
It's more like an 'invitation to offer [verb]' than an 'invitation to an offer[noun]'.
A newspaper advertisement can be considered an offer, though. I don't know much about US law, but there is a famous case from the UK in which a lady claimed some money from a company on the basis of an advertised reward. They didn't pay and said it wasn't a serious claim. She fought in court and won: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlill_v_Carbolic_Smoke_Ball_C...
That supplier is refusing to send me the coffee beans, so I now have a loss.
He bought a product that clearly promised something he is not getting. That is a loss. Amazon or Samsung should be liable. (Unless they can legitamitely deny him service because he waited a year to activate it).
You might be able to compel them to provide you with the service as promised, you might not. You could probably get a return from Amazon plus a little extra something if you're nice about it.
Do you take Verizon to small claims court, calculate the cash value of the service, and have the judge award you that? Can you sue them for false advertising? Can they face any kind of punitive damages? Do you form a class-action suit for everyone who bought a Chromebook and then didn't receive the service? At what point does/would Verizon choose to settle instead, and just provide the service after all?
I mean, this seems like exactly the kind of abuse that laws are designed to prevent, no?