> This is not a GPL violation; it is a straight contract violation

But GPL is a contract

I think the distinction you are pointing would be between a gpl licensor-licensee contract, rather than a licensee-user contract.

(IANAL)

> But GPL is a contract

Not according to the original reasoning by its creators, but opinions differ wildly. However, this is irrelevant to the point; the written offer, which is separate from the GPL, is what is failing to be honored, not the GPL. If you did not receive such a written offer, the GPL, in itself, makes no guarantee that you have the right to the source code.