I'm speaking from a US point of view. To my knowledge there are no 240 watt USB-C chargers in existence.
There are a handful that claim 240 watts but upon closer inspection only provide a max of ~100 watts per port.
There are cables sold with a 240 watt rating but no actual chargers.
I don't think there are any 240 watt chargers on the market though despite it theoretically being supported. Last I read, there were some doubts around if it was truly feasible. Laptops that require more than 90 or so watts still come with proprietary chargers because they can't charge at full rate over USB-C.
My Dell laptop is 240 watts and the only way to charge it at full rate over USB is to buy a proprietary $250 charger from Dell that provides two USB cords that must be plugged in together to achieve a combined 240 watts. The 90 watt charger from my old laptop won't keep it running for more than an hour.
Anyway, hopefully we see 240 watt USB-C in the future but at the moment it seems to be vaporware. Maybe this ruling will push it forward.
TLDR: Ubuntu Pro offers additional security patches to packages found in the universe repo. Universe is community maintained so Ubuntu is essentially stepping in to provide critical CVE patches to some popular software in this repo that the community has not addressed.
I suppose it depends on how you look at it but I don't really see this as withholding patches. Software in this repo would otherwise be missing these patches and it's a ton of work for Ubuntu to provide these patches themselves.
Now is they move glibc to universe and tell me to subscribe to get updates I'll feel differently.
Voluntary recalls are actually more common than ordered recalls. Manufacturers usually don't wait for the NHTSA to get involved.
What makes it a recall is that either the manufacturer or the NHTSA determine that there's a safety defect or that the vehicle doesn't confirm to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard.
So I believe the terminology is required by the NHTSA if it fits the above definition regardless of how the issue is addressed.
Of course this is for the US and this is a recall in China but I'm assuming similar legal requirements are involved.