Well, in reading the entire article it appears that Apple in the UK was required to post a statement on their loss of the case on their UK website. Apple did so, but also posted what was later determined to be incorrect and misleading information and the UK court decide to add a penalty for their cheekiness.
Not quite correct. Apple published the apology, but quoted the judge's decision that "Samsung's products couldn't possibly infringe Apple's patents because they aren't as cool" in the apology. The judge felt that was not cricket, and demanded Apple re-apologize without citing the reason for the apology, or the decision. Apple appealed, stating they merely published the truth as stated by the justice. Apparently that is considered "cheeky." The Appeals Court punished them for the audacity of telling the truth. . . and citing the court's decision. The law is now devolved to the rule of men, not law.
Apple was certainly cheeky, but there was nothing false or misleading about what they posted. They posted the required text and additionally pulled quotes from the judge's decision and them along with the text.
The judge took exception to Apple adhering to the letter of his ruling, but being clever about how they did it.
Apple was required to say they had lost their lawsuit in Britain. They did so but added a caveat that they had won (so far) in America. I’d think that’s fair enough when addressing an audience that has international interests, but the Lords begged to differ.