Things that are not technically inaccurate but give the typical reader the wrong impression (e.g., me in this case) is pretty much the definition of "misleading".
Many people are familiar with the media vocabulary of audio production and cinema/video editing. Just the word "after" is enough clarification.
"Many" is not enough if most are misled. "After" doesn't fix the key ambiguity that is being exploited.
Is the word "fading" really so hard? It's a pretty common word IMO, not even specific to audio/video..
I'm making an empirical claim: If you show people the headline, will they interpret it as a claim that there will no longer be a majority of combustion cars on the road by 2030, even though that's not the claim being made in the article. Not sure what else to tell you other than my confidence that a survey would show this.
But noone would call a "fade" a video that starts to fade out at 1h30m and fades out completely at 2h10m.
In the context of an industry that's been around for about a century, several years or a decade counts as a fade.