In my opinion, the usage is incorrect, yet, well-accepted. That would be my short answer.
It's a personification of an inanimate object or concept. I think it boils down to a style choice that has run amok . . .
By assigning a human quality to something, authors (especially advertisers) believe it to make the reader more receptive to the idea they are putting across.
The test for all of these is just as you stated above: Is there is someone else who is really doing the claiming? And, for an inanimate object or concept to claim anything, there must be someone else behind it.
Granted, there might be special exceptions: Large entities such as corporations, countries, famous attractions, etc. These may claim things on their own as they are often thought of as already being personified. But, I would argue that they are doing their claiming stylistically (and occasionally legally) rather than animately.
So, as with most aspects of an evolving language: It is incorrect until enough people use it to make it correct. Grammarians and professorial types hate that answer, but, unfortunately for the defenders of the cause, it is a losing battle.
I hope this is helpful.