If this business model is allowed, imagine all the other kinds of profile that communications providers would be able to sell about you based on the contents of your email.
Assume this is true for a second. I'm not aware of any legal caselaw that has ever drawn such a distinction for the acts in play here. So I guess i don't get while people keep saying this like it should or would matter.
(I can't really opine on the case itself for obvious reasons)
Law is always a distant second to morality. Sometimes it catches up, sometimes it doesn't. But to define what is right by a lack of previously established law is astoundingly naive, bordering on self-serving. Even when there is precedent, it doesn't necessarily define the morality of a situation, e.g. slavery, driving under the influence and women's suffrage among many thousands of examples.
That's why people keep mentioning it.
Most other circuits (except two I believe) have explicitly held it to be okay for things like behavioral advertising.
See, for example, Kirch v. Embarq Management Co (10th circuit)
Given ECPA does not define "ordinary course of business" in any way, and the accompanying senate reports do not say anything about the exception being related to "for the benefit of the end user" (and instead talks entirely about the need/desires of the ISPS using the communications) , I would guess the opinion will have some trouble at the appellate level, but i guess we'll see!
(Though any pair of cases where an appeals court has said they are different would be fine!)