The problem is that the article has its facts all mixed up and glosses over the central point, which is the difference between a law and a standard. Without getting that point across, this is just publicity for its own sake.
I think you got it all backwards. They are contesting that very distinction, so their position is that there is none, so why should they write as if there was?
Their stance is that the other side's distinction is merely in their choice of words, but the facts of the situation are such that the standard plays the same role as a law would, and as such choosing to call it a "standard" rather than a "law" only serves to confuse people, not to describe the actual situation, and so they instead choose words that accurately and clearly describe things as they are from their perspective.
