Okay, I don't actually believe they would go that far. But if you'd asked me before seeing this article whether they'd even go this far I'd probably have said no, so who even knows at this point? Even if it turns out the misleading nature of this ad was unintentional, that's a pretty egregious oversight, especially since they had to know an ad in this context would be closely scrutinized regardless of how they presented it.
Discussions: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13400291, <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30721728>
• https://www.theregister.com/2017/01/19/browser_line_of_death...
• https://emilymstark.com/2022/12/18/death-to-the-line-of-deat...
Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34074966
Your explanation makes a lot more sense, if it's part of the browser chrome, and only shows up when people visit the Chrome page, there's probably no legal boundaries crossed here or injection into other websites happening.
But man does that look like part of the website and injected in there.