People confused with the branding don't realize that USB is by manufacturers for manufacturers, so anything that lets them claim on the box they support USB 420.69 while doing the least amount of work and spend is a-OK.
This is what happens when standards bodies have perverse incentives to confuse. See the SD Association for even worse branding.
This isn't entirely true. The point of the manufacturers together agreeing on a standard is to remove some of these perverse incentives; here's how it works in theory:
Without the standards group:
If manufacturer A is confusing, then they can sell more than manufacturers B and C. So in turn manufacturers B and C will be confusing as well in order to keep up. This is bad for consumers and generates ill will against USB in general (globally bad for A B and C)
With the standards group:
Manufacturers A B & C all agree on something non-confusing, and in order to use the USB trademark, they can't deviate from what they agreed upon. USB is now sunshine and rainbows so USB customers are happy in general (globally good for A B & C).
Something has broken down in the system if they make names that are confusing since USB being confusing is bad for everybody, and none of the manufacturers get a leg up on the others if they all use the same confusing language.
This is what happens when standards bodies have perverse incentives to confuse. See the SD Association for even worse branding.