The answer to the first part of your question is so clearly 'yes' that I wonder whether you had some meaning of 'blame' in mind other than its literal meaning of allocating responsibility for an undesirable state of affairs. Let us consider two real examples...
In the UK, the Home Office is the government department responsible for immigration. The immigration rules published by the Home Office are so utterly impenetrable that an entire industry has sprung up to service the resulting need to explain the rules to would be immigrants. I, as an intelligent native speaker of English, found myself utterly perplexed by the Home Office rules when working as a consultant to another government department in connection with overseas recruitment. The rules themselves are not complicated, but they are very badly presented. I think the blame for my perplexity can be fairly laid at the front door of the Home Office.
I use Microsoft Teams for my work. I am reasonably IT literate, yet it took me many hours of effort over several days to resolve a fault that was preventing me from using Teams. The cause of my confusion was a mistake in the online guidance provided by Microsoft. I am happy to allocate responsibility to Microsoft.
Now let us move on to the second part of your questions, which is much less clear-cut. There are many factors that need to be taken into account when determining the extent to which you or one or more other parties are responsible for your ignorance and confusion. The main factors are:
The complexity of the subject matter. You can hardly blame string theorists if you fail to understand string theory.
The nature and degree of the effort you have invested in attaining the facts. You would have only yourself to blame if you got wet because you hadn't bothered to check the weather forecast.
Whether you have relied upon a source that is, or purports to be, an authority on the matter. You might blame the author if you were still utterly confused by string theory after reading their book entitled 'String Theory Made Easy'.
Whether a source your have trusted was dishonest or incompetent or where themselves misinformed in turn by another party. You would feel entitled to blame the railway company if they told you your train was running on time when in fact it was three hours late.
Whether the subject matter is covered by legislation which places a particular onus on one or more organisations to ensure that you are well informed. For example, a medical doctor in the UK has a duty of candour to patients, so your doctor would be unquestionably to blame if they misinformed you.
I think you will find the the factors I have listed above will help you decide who is to blame in the majority of cases. However, there will always be cases which cannot be readily decided on the basis of a handful of principles, so happily they will furnish endless scope for further discussion.