The use of regulatory jargon isn't that bad. I mean, the word "recall" has a specific meaning to the DOT and a specific set of requirements and this action is being taken under that regime. It's a "recall". That the etymology is confusing is unfortunate, but language just does that sometimes.

So it's nice that we have these people called "journalists" who help us navigate this kind of jargon maze by explaining for the lay reader what the actual meaning of the complicated regulatory communication is.

Except that this particular journalist decided to bury that fact ("The company has released an over-the-air software update to fix the issue, it said.") in the seventh paragraph, just a dozen words from the end of the article. That's just straight up malpractice. Reuters is actively trying to harm their readers understanding of the issue.