Most consumer cameras use some sort of CMOS sensor, and the majority of those are made by a handful of companies (though this is changing). The major distinguishing factors are how colour separation information is handled. There are details regarding how that CMOS is configured and powered, but sensors are generally very similar in how they respond to light.
Once upon a time, Nikon was pretty vocal about their sensor tech, as they were one of the few camera companies to get custom sensors made for them in a specific fab. I think all the major camera companies own their own fabs now, though many do multiple sourcing, and contract out or own pieces of fabs instead of owning a fab outright. Anyway, none of this probably matters, as the sensors themselves are not very interesting.
So, manufacturers are going to talk about how they all take somewhat similar sensor tech and the voltages they make and actually turn that into data that can be turned into an image. Those algorithms are more important, in many ways, than how a transistor behaves when a photon smashes into it. At least, from an engineering and firmware point-of-view.
Of course, those cameras that use somewhat unique sensors, like the Foveon X3, talk that up quite a bit.
The rest of the pack distinguish themselves in other ways, because at the end of the day, whether a sensor-array-with-bayer-filter-and-support-silicon is made in Fab A or Fab B is of not much interest to engineers, or most photographers. These parts of the cameras are sort of commodity items with little to distinguish them from each-other. At least, little to distinguish them when dreaming up advertising copy. I suppose if you have a sensor array that uses a lot less power you might talk that up, especially for those power-hungry compact models. But that isn't very sexy compared with whiz-bang image processing algorithms.