I'm also not a lawyer, and while your article is a good start, it could perhaps benefit from drilling down a little more into the principles of mistake.

the doctrine of mistake: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mistake_(contract_law)

It is not so much that there is an honest mistake, it needs to be that one party knew, or ought to have known, of the mistake and seeks to take advantage of that.

It is possible an airline could publish a mistake fare of $10 or even $100 less than it intended. But it probably wouldn't be able to get out of a contract under those circumstances depending on the value what the fare should be. Could an airline claim 'mistake' when consumers buy a fare for $1000 that the airline says should have been $1100? Probably not.

Could an airline claim mistake when the first class fare is $150 and the economy class fare on the same flight is $1500? Now you're perhaps starting to get in the ball-park.

Regarding the DOT, you should also consider CDKing's post 10512 in this thread, for more discussion on where the DOT might be going.

I have also posted another link in this thread where there is comprehensive discussion of the current DOT's position, and the basis of the law under which DOT operates.

You mention 'consumer friendly'. The discussion could perhaps look at the objectives of consumer protection law. Is it there to protect everyone, or is it there to protect those who genuinely get caught out? Can it be argued that those who knew, or ought to have known of a mistake are genuinely caught out?

The CTA decision does not rule out protection under mistake fares. It ruled out protection based on a specific set of circumstances.