Obviously, it’s not the end of the world. Employees of famous companies, occasionally even reputable and knowledgeable people are not immune to using wrong or mistaken spelling. This is explained by a simple fact that there are plenty of professionals who are dyslexic and/or careless about spelling, while still being experts in their subject areas. There is nothing wrong about that, but evidence of their misuse of written language is not grounds for an argument that the wrong spelling is correct. Researching what the word actually stands for takes less than a minute, and it should clear any doubt and avoid unnecessary arguments.
[0] Now that you know…
You can find millions of instances of any given literacy-impaired error. "Would of" and "your not going to find this" are wrong... but they're out there by the boatload. No need to propagate them further.
ZIP similarly doesn't stand for anything but is styled as such. So I suppose the pushback is more against being used as a stand-in for generic raw image formats.
Edit: just noticed your comment was greyed but I didn't downvote it fwiw.
You can also find tons of instances of people referring to Apple's computers as MACs. And that one is even worse because MAC is an actual computer-hardware term.
So "RAW" may not be a well-known acronym, but it doesn't mean it will never be.
The Brits suffer from the opposite problem: making acronyms into regular proper names. It's endemic over there; their articles are replete with references to the nonexistent "Nasa," "Nato," and other entities. In at least one case in the last few years they did this to a piece of legislation where there was actually a British company with the name they were misusing.