It isn't a "recall" in common English. So, the title and story are wrong. Very disappointing on the part of Reuters. This is not quality journalism.
Since they wrote it the way they did, I would guess there is some regulatory document that causes this to be classified a a "recall" for legal purposes. But it's incorrect to substitute legal language for common English language when there is a conflict between the two, except in legal contexts. That rule goes for technical language in general.
Is this practice more common in British English? I feel that it seems to appear more often in writing by British people, but that's anecdotal and could be incorrect.
Since they wrote it the way they did, I would guess there is some regulatory document that causes this to be classified a a "recall" for legal purposes. But it's incorrect to substitute legal language for common English language when there is a conflict between the two, except in legal contexts. That rule goes for technical language in general.
Is this practice more common in British English? I feel that it seems to appear more often in writing by British people, but that's anecdotal and could be incorrect.