There aren't any pecuniary concerns to worry about, but peculiar ones in some contexts. The following one, for an example. When one says avidhya instead of avidya, they tend to dig their own grave, via etymology.
The word avidhya derives itself out of the verb root vyadh. The verb root here indicating beating/string, piercing/breaking down. The prefixed a, can either be contrary or contradictory as always. The contrary position does not hold as well as the contradictory one.
This given, the usage of avidhya, denotes unbreakable, to put in simpler terms. So, what is the problem in this usage? None, except for a small one. One talks about something for removal but acknowledges it cannot be, by definition. Weird position to be in, but that's better compared to something else.
Here is where it gets to be a thorn in the flesh. One either is ignorant of the issue or is aware and dispenses with nonchalance. If it is the former, one should put a disclaimer up of say, "take my words with a salt pan". Or, one could also stop dispensing information that one is not sure of one way, or other. And from an ethical stand, it makes sense to not dispense information one is not a master of.
Now, what if one knows they aren't exactly right but doesn't care? This is even more troublesome a situation, from the ethical shoes. How does one acknowledge such an individual as authoritative enough, or honest? We, as a society, thrive on collective subjective/relative measures, but is that valid?
The issue with self-appointed masters of any trade is the nonchalance of the audience. If the consumer were to question, a seller at some point, ought to come to terms with ethics and honesty. Without it, a supposed intellectual people would do itself and the ones to come, a grave treachery.