Well, if you take of the programmer's literal-minded hat for a second, this is probably representative of how the author feels: that she lied to her grandma. It might be incorrect but to dismiss her feelings of guilt like that is missing the point.
I don't doubt that the company's fine print attempts to disclaim all responsibility for whatever errors they make in their calls, no matter how glaring; I'm quite confident that 23andMe could claim someone's ancestry is 97% derived from thoroughbred horses, and if pressed on the obviously nonsense result, they'd refer to their legal boilerplate and claim that the fault lay with whoever was credulous and foolish enough to presume they provide a product of merchantable quality in exchange for the fee that they charge.
What I don't see is why anyone needs to take them seriously in the attempt. And, as other commenters have pointed out, when we have companies in the same industry attempting to market genetic analysis for purposes from skin care to law enforcement, it's very much worth pausing for a moment, just to make sure that we aren't at risk of accidentally reinventing the justly discredited pseudoscience of eugenics, a century down the line.
Only if you think the point of the article is feelings and not the dissemination of information. This is not a personal blog about relationships, its about the science of genetics. Drawing a distinction between the two is important and blurring the line furthers the spread of bad science.