It is noteworthy you might also have a claim of fraud. The prima facie elements of fraud are quite uniform among jurisdictions in the U.S. (although it is unclear what your jurisdiction is). See Conroy v. Regents of University of California, 45 Cal.4th 1244, 1255 (2009):
The elements of fraud, which give rise to the tort action for deceit, are (1) a misrepresentation, (2) with knowledge of its falsity, (3) with the intent to induce another's reliance on the misrepresentation, (4) justifiable reliance, and (5) resulting damage.
This might be of your interest because at least some jurisdictions in the U.S. award treble damages in claims of fraud.
Although in this case recovery for fraud and for breach of contract would be mutually exclusive, you might want to do the numbers and compare which remedy is preferable and/or more viable. The amount of treble damages arising from tuition and other provable losses might exceed the compensation of the fraudulently promised one-year apprenticeship.
Since here a claim fraud would be premised on losses you *incurred toward completion of the program, mitigation of damages is not relevant in that claim. That being said, the prima facie element that appears most difficult to prove is the entity's knowledge of falsity (see element (2) from the excerpt above).
One first attempt to prove "knowledge of falsity" could consist of scrutinizing whether the entity truly had actual hiring relations with Amazon, PG&E, or the like, based on the misrepresentations it made to you. This scrutiny would take place during discovery (assuming that you sue the entity), since only there is where the entity could be forced to comply with subpoenas --especially subpoenas duces tecum-- or else be subjected to what is known as an adverse inference of fact.
Edited to add ...
In the comments, which were hastily moved to chat, you asked:
In the case that you mention, a summary judgement was awarded for the defendant. Wouldn't that generally be taken to be a negative outcome for the plaintiff?
To which I answered:
No. I cited Conroy only as reference of the prima facie elements of fraud, regardless of the decision reached therein. But looking at the Conroy decision in particular, the court alleges (even if falsely, which courts sometimes blatantly do and the rest of us cannot know for sure whether they did it here) that the plaintiff failed to produce evidence of misrepresentations and of reasonable reliance. That alleged failure is specific to that case and not to be construed as general one.
Although self-explanatory, I am incorporating our comments/exchange to this answer because your follow-up inquiry (i.e., the purpose of some citations) is relevant and should not get lost through the eventual purging of a chat.