Reminds me of the Canada Dry class action. Claims to be "made from real ginger", but there was no material amount of ginger. I agree, you can't claim to have X number of partners, induce people to participate in your program at least in part on the basis of that claim, and then try to say "I said subject to availability and only 2/30 will have any availability this decade, suckers!". There needs to be some reasonable de minimis threshold to be able to justifiably advertise or market that you have a certain feature/benefit.

That said, I'm not commenting on where that line is, whether AP is above/below such a threshold, or whether it's intentional vs negligent vs outside their control. My point is only that you can't justifiably rely on misrepresentations as your advertising strategy. Like everyone else, I don't know if they plan to fix the problems, or drop partners, or add partners, or wait out status quo indefinitely.

My personal opinion, not legal advice.