Not disagreeing, but I would certainly like some references if you could provide us any. In fact, it would be genuinely troubling if you cannot find any good sources. Here is why: this notion of fingerprinting seems to be an invention of the legal wing, to be brought out as a CYA when these requests were inevitably going to be demanded.

Time for some math:

Since it is only a 0.01% chance, it means you need 10000 discrete pieces of information collected on a single individual before there is a chance of error. If a company indeed has that many pieces of information on you, you first of all need to know that for a fact.

There is a chance the company will counter that this is aggregated probability, as in, with an uneven distribution of errors. If it is indeed aggregated probability, the companies which advertise on these platforms need to demand their money back because for all you known, none of the folks they are targeting are actually correct fits for their ads. Fingerprinting puts the burden of proof on the shoulders of the company that they are indeed allowing advertisers to target the audience they want. How can they be so sure if the errors are unevenly distributed?

In any case, everyone should demand the information anyway, and let us start using this fingerprinting theory as an excellent opportunity to get deeper into the practices of these companies.