There is "Is identical", "looks identical" and "has lost sufficient detail to clearly not be the original." - being able to differentiate between these three states is useful.
Importantly the first one is parameterless, but the second and third are parameterized by the audience. For example humans don't see colour very well, some animals have much better colour gamut, while some can't distinguish colour at all.
Calling one of them "perceptually lossless" is cheating, to the disadvantage of algorithms that honestly advertise themselves as lossy while still achieving "looks identical" compression.
It's a well established term, though. It's been used in academic works for a long time (since at least 1970), and it's basically another term for the notion of "transparency" as it relates to data compression.
I honestly don't notice this anymore. Advertisers have been using such language since time immemorial, to the point it's pretty much a rule that an adjective with a qualifier means "not actually ${adjective}, but kind of like it in ${specific circumstances}". So "perceptually lossless" just means "not actually lossless, except you couldn't tell it from truly lossless just by looking".
It is in no way the definition of lossy. It is a subset of lossy. Most lossy image/video compression has visible artifacting, putting it outside the subset.
There is "Is identical", "looks identical" and "has lost sufficient detail to clearly not be the original." - being able to differentiate between these three states is useful.