Depending on the what the appropriate quantification of 'often' is, that might make sense. Do we have enough reason to believe it would take on a high enough value to merit the usage of a term that refers only to it?

The other problem with what you're describing is that all we actually know is that the model is reflecting the current state of things. Your statement attributes particular causes to the current state of things, and implies a certain valuation of the current state of things (which I don't personally disagree with, necessarily—but I don't think my personal views should be reflected in scientific/engineering jargon).

So given the uncertain value of 'often,' and the unsettled nature of the causes behind various aspects of the 'current state of things,' it seems to be solidly jumping the gun to frame the entire general problem with a term that refers to this partial and fraught aspect of it.

No, this does also not match.

One of the easiest way to get a ML model that creates systematic errors is spam filters. If I take my spam folder with no consideration, what the filter will learn is that any language which isn't my own are spam, and that servers located outside my nation are spammers. This resembles prejudice.

The cause of this systematic error is that individual email addresses do not get ham emails uniformly from every nation and every language. Proximity warps the data. I would need to normalize the data based on language and nation if I wanted to remove those errors in the filter. Looking at it from a political perspective does not make the filter perform better, and fixing it from that side has a high risk of causing even more errors in the model.