You'd be lucky if this didn't get summarily dismissed in court. And if you somehow miraculously managed to bring this to trial, what exactly do you think would happen? Months or years down the road, let's say you come into court and somehow win. The court orders...what, exactly? For OUYA to build in a better method of accessing recovery? What's the judge going to do (as OUYA has claimed repeatedly that this is the focus of post-launch work)-- put a timeframe down? There's no realistic way that would be enforced.
Moreover, faulty advertising is a pretty difficult sell in the United States, and I don't see a single shred of logic you've offered that isn't going to be burned by the standard advice:
caveat emptor. You were sunk the moment you either pledged on Kickstarter (as you
take full responsibility for your pledge with the knowledge that the finished product might not live up to expectations, which, by the way, is not going to fly in a faulty advertising case)
or accepted OUYA's Terms of Service on first booting up your console.
Bottom line:
- OUYA promises root. Delivered.
- OUYA promises an unlocked bootloader. Delivered.
- OUYA promises recovery access. Delivered.
- OUYA provides an easily-modified hardware box. Delivered.
They've met the base requirements for an "open" system. You have full access to the device. And as every custom ROM, kernel, or recovery says on the tin,
you forfeit your right to complain to the OEM after flashing. That the recovery is obnoxiously difficult to access or that the flashing process is more difficult than say, a Nexus handset is completely and utterly irrelevant. Your claim is that the device
can't do any of the bullet points listed above, when it most certainly
can.
Considering you also bought the box with preloaded software, you'd also never convince a judge that it was meant to be a development box. It was marketed to play games to end-users with the
possibility of customizability by tinkerers.
Like I said, "fails to meet expectations" != "false advertising."