It is definitely an error on the part of the sellers, and one that could create a problem for them as buyers could file SNAD claims over that misunderstanding.
However, for a claim to fit what is usually considered the legal definition of fraudulent, it would involve the intentional deception to secure unfair or unlawful gain. An error of fact about a product isn't deliberate deception.
For example, I've seen people sell Pentium 4 processors with hyper-threading as "dual core" because the seller did not understand that a single core CPU with hyper-threading still has only one logical core despite multiple pipelines.
The Playstation 3s that actually were backwards compatible were the ones that were most likely to fail because those were made in the days of a trend of low quality solder in game consoles.
