Yes there are issues with a number of materials. But considering the cost and the need to not make it archival the choice is towards less costly materials. I can understand the needs of some to make the print last for 500 years. Some clients may desire to pay that extra cost. Others do not, and will opt for being on the cheap side.
What is interesting is that if we look at the master painters I would bet none of them had any concern about the archival quality of their work. Some paintings made it while others did not. And here 300 to 700 years later we are now preoccupied with the archival qualities of prints and data. And using water based colors on plaster walls - was that a good idea? i.e. disaster is just one earthquake away.
For inkjet prints it is not a one of a kind print issue. i.e. a real painting is one of one If the inkpet print fades, or otherwise self destructs then just print another one and go on with life. The client gets a new print and you are out five bucks worth of paper and ink.
In my case I charge under fifty bucks for a 17 x 24 print (not mounted) with no guaranties. If they paid $250 for that then there would be a concern to use some other language that would specify and define what archival really is. It would then be important to see if the paper and ink had any archival qualities and specify a remedy if there is a failure.
In general, some print makers will make an issue of archival, while other will not. The choice, as I see it, is between the photographer, the client and their checkbook.